Quote from: Elliot WilenIt doesn't matter what I have planned for a campaign; if a player ever told me he wants his character to go through a questioning of faith and ultimately emerge stronger, I'd suggest he find another game. The fact that you'd even entertain the possibility of a player planning a complete "plotline" tells me that your approach to gaming is fundamentally different from mine.

You don't have some idea where things are going and where they might end up? I mean, I might not know the details, but I know in general the PCs are probably gonna triumph over adversity in the end in a heroic fantasy game.

QuoteSimilarly the fact that you would plan a game with a plot and resolution, as opposed to a mysterious fact about the world whose impact on play will depend on what the PCs do--that's not just not something I'd do, except as a lark.

I think you're overreading or misunderstanding what I say. By "plot" I mean how things progress in the world outside the PCs. Plot is, "BBEG will attempt to summon a dragon and destroy the city, King blablabla will set up a reward for those trying to stop him, however..." I mean, plot encompasses the happenings in the game. Including the PCs, which are of course unpredictable, but generally you can tell which way things are going. I mean, I don't think a game that was not predictable at all would really work. Peoples expectations would almost uniformly be ruined. I mean, if  a game was heroic fantasy but suddenly all the PCs turned into slavers selling underaged slaves to noblemen I would bet there would be quite a bit of discontent at the table.

QuoteBut once we get beyond that, you have to realize that none of the people here are advocating boring games. You'd be better off asking Abyssal Maw what he does when none of his players have goals for their characters. What does he do to get the campaign off the ground?

They're advocating games that would bore my group of friends. Obviously it doesn't bore them, or else they deal with the boredom for some reason. I've tried to explain my preferences hoping they would do the same, and I believe they have.

QuoteAnd conversely, if you're a player who doesn't like to formulate goals, what has been an acceptable and fun way to "get into" the game? E.g., did someone else have a goal for their character that jump-started things? Or did the GM plop a mission or a dungeon in your lap? Or did the group basically start by kicking around and interacting with the setting until "something happened"?

Not really a question meant for me.

I do want to answer Eliot's post, but I have to go right now, and I'll be gone overnight. So I'll be back.

Quote from: Elliot WilenAnd conversely, if you're a player who doesn't like to formulate goals, what has been an acceptable and fun way to "get into" the game? E.g., did someone else have a goal for their character that jump-started things? Or did the GM plop a mission or a dungeon in your lap? Or did the group basically start by kicking around and interacting with the setting until "something happened"?

For me, it's sort of the last thing.  I'll interact with the GM's world and follow up on whatever seems interesting.  Though if another player's PC seems to be driving things at some point, I'm happy to fall in behind them.

Reading this thread makes me realize I'm the kind of passive/reactionary player I hate to GM...

Quote from: KenHRFor me, it's sort of the last thing.  I'll interact with the GM's world and follow up on whatever seems interesting.  Though if another player's PC seems to be driving things at some point, I'm happy to fall in behind them.

Reading this thread makes me realize I'm the kind of passive/reactionary player I hate to GM...

QFT, with the following exceptions...

If another player's PC seems to be driving things/pursuing some plot line...I may have my character riff off that...


Here's our usual setup for a game (with me as player):

GM:  I'm looking to run a far future game set in a vast interstellar (relatively) benevolent empire.   I'm thinking it will be centered around a crew of space traders who fly around and get into assorted deals that invariably get them in trouble.  So,   I guess I'm looking for a captain/leader-type, a pilot/navigator, a muscle-head, a tech-head or some combination thereof. How does that sound?
Player 1:  Sounds good.  I'll play the muscle-head.
Player 2:  Sounds ok to me. I'll play the captain.
Player 3:  Sound fine.  I'll be the techie/pilot.

At this point we'll probably make characters, or given that many games we play these days are one-shots, the GM may make up the outline of the characters, giving them some background bits that tie into the adventure, leaving further details to the players...

If we decided to continue the one-shot for additional "episodes".  The players may tweak/flesh-out there characters after the pilot before the episodes...

Hmm... I guess as a GM I prefer riffing off player provided hooks instead of trying to hook them on my own. Bad experiences with players just not getting it and things kind of crashing. I mean, if I had players who would leap at hooks that would be great, and it would be worth the time and energy to create the hooks. As a GM, hooks don't come naturally to me (if I'm a player I can create tons of hooks for my character with ease, as a GM I have to guess at other peoples interests, both the players and characters), so I'd prefer the players do that work

Seth, I see you missing a point.

If, as a GM a player comes up to me, or several other people here, and lays out his personal character arc in full, as you suggested, most of us would tell him to shove off.

Not because we think characters who have goals are bad, but because what he just presented wasn't just the goal, but the journey itself, complete with 'happy ending'.  

See, if a player told me his paladin character wanted to be a true believer, but kept questioning his faith... that's good. It's not a GOAL, but it's certainly a hook. If he tells me his Goal is to confront the gods about why they allow evil in the world... well, that's a fine goal to. Not gonna happen necessarily, but he can certainly TRY to make it happen.  

BUT: If he tells me: I'm gonna confront the Gods. Not only that, I'm gonna get them to admit they are helpless and weak, and that they need MY help to overcome the evil in their ranks...

I'd cut him off and say 'not at my table'. Now, your little example wasn't quite so extreme, but was in the same vein.


None of which necessarily equates to flak. It's your table, and if that's how you want players to approach you, more power.

Just don't tell us WE have to play that way too. 'Cause you ain't my GM, and I wouldn't let you try that as a player. Capisce?

Quote from: SethwickHmm... I guess as a GM I prefer riffing off player provided hooks instead of trying to hook them on my own. Bad experiences with players just not getting it and things kind of crashing. I mean, if I had players who would leap at hooks that would be great, and it would be worth the time and energy to create the hooks. As a GM, hooks don't come naturally to me (if I'm a player I can create tons of hooks for my character with ease, as a GM I have to guess at other peoples interests, both the players and characters), so I'd prefer the players do that work

See, I used to try to GM that way, but I've found that the most rewarding method of play (for me, and for my players) is for all of us to find our story together.  I've had far too many campaigns start off with everyone thinking they know exactly what they want from the game, only to find that their goals change/become irrelevant/don't work with the group as a whole/etc.

Now, my players are a bit more active than I am when I play, and as a GM I can react to that and work with them dynamically to create a goal.  In my current game, we're starting off with a small adventure, mostly to get us all used to the mechanics of the game.  But after only a single session (second one is tonight...at last), by listening carefully to what my players are discussing, paying attention to what they're doing, and reading the e-mails they send after the session is up, I have a few new plot ideas that I can implement that I wouldn't have come up with on my own.  And I know they'll be interested in following up on these new hooks.

They're making their own goals organically as the game progresses, and I'm happy to follow up on that.

Quote from: SpikeSeth, I see you missing a point.

If, as a GM a player comes up to me, or several other people here, and lays out his personal character arc in full, as you suggested, most of us would tell him to shove off.

Not because we think characters who have goals are bad, but because what he just presented wasn't just the goal, but the journey itself, complete with 'happy ending'.  

See, if a player told me his paladin character wanted to be a true believer, but kept questioning his faith... that's good. It's not a GOAL, but it's certainly a hook. If he tells me his Goal is to confront the gods about why they allow evil in the world... well, that's a fine goal to. Not gonna happen necessarily, but he can certainly TRY to make it happen.  

BUT: If he tells me: I'm gonna confront the Gods. Not only that, I'm gonna get them to admit they are helpless and weak, and that they need MY help to overcome the evil in their ranks...

I'd cut him off and say 'not at my table'. Now, your little example wasn't quite so extreme, but was in the same vein.


None of which necessarily equates to flak. It's your table, and if that's how you want players to approach you, more power.

Just don't tell us WE have to play that way too. 'Cause you ain't my GM, and I wouldn't let you try that as a player. Capisce?

Not telling you to play that way anymore than you are telling me to play your way. I'm trying to explain and question and learn. Sorry if I seem hostile about it.

But what I have given you if I say "I want to confront the gods and I want to win" is not the whole journy. It is an outline. A VERY brief one. It's also something quite different from how most games run. The fun is in filling out that outline. Also, just because the end result is likely known doesn't mean there isn't drama inbetween. Movies can be dramatic without twist endings.

Also, it doesn't mean it's going to be EASY to do. If I, as a GM, receive that request, I'm gonna make the result possible. Not easy, but certainly possible.

Also, if I tell you "I want to confront the gods and win" I'm giving you a goal. A goal is an intended ending. It IS the "happy ending" as you put it. So, really, you can't have a goal without "knowing" the happy ending, the happy ending is the goal.

What about the other way? "I want to confront the gods, refuse to back down in the face of their might, and be crushed."

Quote from: KenHRSee, I used to try to GM that way, but I've found that the most rewarding method of play (for me, and for my players) is for all of us to find our story together. I've had far too many campaigns start off with everyone thinking they know exactly what they want from the game, only to find that their goals change/become irrelevant/don't work with the group as a whole/etc.

Which is why I like to get those goals out in the open beforehand. Conflicts between goals can be interesting or they can mess up the game. It certainly can work better if everyone agrees on a single goal or the GM provides the goal (although some players chafe at this).

QuoteNow, my players are a bit more active than I am when I play, and as a GM I can react to that and work with them dynamically to create a goal. In my current game, we're starting off with a small adventure, mostly to get us all used to the mechanics of the game. But after only a single session (second one is tonight...at last), by listening carefully to what my players are discussing, paying attention to what they're doing, and reading the e-mails they send after the session is up, I have a few new plot ideas that I can implement that I wouldn't have come up with on my own. And I know they'll be interested in following up on these new hooks.

That is a bit of GM advice I hear over and over again. It's good advice. But you need players who discuss that stuff in front of you or at all. I don't think I've ever discussed a game I'm in with another player outside of the game. I havn't seen players do it either. So while a great piece of advice it doesn't always work. I'm glad it does for you. I guess I'm not very talkative about games.

QuoteThey're making their own goals organically as the game progresses, and I'm happy to follow up on that.

Cool. But you do have a problem if two players goals conflict and you don't want conflict in the game. Or, even worse, two players goals pull the game in entirely different directions. Sure these things can be dealt with, but I prefere to avoid the problem by getting things out in the open pregame.

So, how do you deal with things like that? Either a player (or a small group of players) trying to have his character go off on his own or oppose the rest of the group?

I don't like the term goal. My players have certain aspirations for their characters, which is subject to change during actual play. For instance - two players in my IHW pre- campaign sessions, originaly wanted their characeters to have an Aubrey/Maturin dynamic. When actual play commenced their characters relationship turned into a Blythe/Fletcher Christian ideological slugfest.

The important thing is nobody - not them or me -knows how the "story" is going to turn out. Part of the appeal IMO of trad rpgs as opposed to story focused rpgs is that the story in trad rpgs is organic, nobody knows anything until the final scene of the campaign.

So yeah, players often tell me before hand their aspirations for their characters. It changes as the campaign progresses. Hell the campaign plot itself changes. Everything changes. The outcome of the story and the fates of their characters is unknown.  

Regards,
David R

I've come to the point where either I require the players buy off on my "group" goal/concept or identify for themselves what they want the "group" goal/concept to be beforehand.  I mean you are bounded by the "party syndrome".  As a GM, I'm not going to try and run 4-6 seperate solo adventures simultaneously to appease what an individual player wants to do.  You at least have to give me the reason your characters are together and why they are submitting themselves to this lifestyle.  I agree with having scenarios designed around a specific character but if the "group" goal/concept isn't defined the other players feel drug along for the ride instead of assisting a member of their "group".

Quote from: SethwickWhich is why I like to get those goals out in the open beforehand. Conflicts between goals can be interesting or they can mess up the game. It certainly can work better if everyone agrees on a single goal or the GM provides the goal (although some players chafe at this).

Sometimes, though (and this is just my experience), we find that even a well-established goal might end up just not being interesting.  This is especially true when we try a game outside our comfort zone (new mechanics or an unfamiliar setting might turn old ideas on their heads...not always a bad thing!).

Quote from: SethwickThat is a bit of GM advice I hear over and over again. It's good advice. But you need players who discuss that stuff in front of you or at all. I don't think I've ever discussed a game I'm in with another player outside of the game. I havn't seen players do it either. So while a great piece of advice it doesn't always work. I'm glad it does for you. I guess I'm not very talkative about games.

My players aren't always, either.  So I hound their asses 'til I get answers.

Quote from: SethwickCool. But you do have a problem if two players goals conflict and you don't want conflict in the game. Or, even worse, two players goals pull the game in entirely different directions. Sure these things can be dealt with, but I prefere to avoid the problem by getting things out in the open pregame.

So, how do you deal with things like that? Either a player (or a small group of players) trying to have his character go off on his own or oppose the rest of the group?

I let it happen.  We're a group of friends that have known one another for years, and a little in-game conflict doesn't affect our lives outside the game.  We're always ready to rise to the challenge offered by one of our own, and if the "offending" party is being an asshat, the other players will tell him so (in character).

Additionally, I'm not shy in enforcing consequences for actions.  If Jim's guy kills the miller's adolescent son, the entire village is going to come down on his ass.  If Chris's guy pulls a gun and fires in a crowded urban street, the police are gonna give chase, and the guy he fired at might want to even the score, too.  If Kev's guy palms the mob boss's pocket watch, the mob boss will notice and come looking for it.  This isn't adversarial GMing, it's following every action through to its logical consequence, and it isn't very hard to do.

Quote from: David RI don't like the term goal. My players have certain aspirations for their characters, which is subject to change during actual play. For instance - two players in my IHW pre- campaign sessions, originaly wanted their characeters to have an Aubrey/Maturin dynamic. When actual play commenced their characters relationship turned into a Blythe/Fletcher Christian ideological slugfest.

The important thing is nobody - not them or me -knows how the "story" is going to turn out. Part of the appeal IMO of trad rpgs as opposed to story focused rpgs is that the story in trad rpgs is organic, nobody knows anything until the final scene of the campaign.

The problem is that such stories tend to be disjointed and schizophrenic. They look like they were written by many authors who weren't all working together. And, of course, they were. Now, my ideal RPG, as a player, is not one where all the players work together, it's a system where everyone competes over the control of the story and that competition is focused by the system to keep the story coherent. As a GM, however, I like players to work together, and since that system, IMO, hasn't been created perfectly yet, I generally work that way as a player too. Since that conflict-drive-story creator hasn't been made (Although Capes is close), I do prefere some shared purpose among players. Yes, things aren't as crazy and unpredictable as a "traditional" game. However, most of the things a traditional game gives that my method does not are allready given to me by computer games and television.

QuoteSo yeah, players often tell me before hand their aspirations for their characters. It changes as the campaign progresses. Hell the campaign plot itself changes. Everything changes. The outcome of the story and the fates of their characters is unknown.  

Regards,
David R

I'm fine with things changing. However, if someone tells me an aspiration for their character, I generally won't change that or erase the possibility of it unless they tell me to.


Really, it all depends on the style of game agreed to before hand. If people agree that it will be the type of game where the GM and the rules can change things and erase the probability of players aspirations, then that's cool. But I think there needs to be that pregame discussion atleast. I would not like going into a game thinking my PC was sacrosanct and finding out I had a GM who liked to fuck with the PCs. Likewise, if I went into a game expecting to have my PC screwed with at every turn I would probably be bored if the GM treated everything within a two foot radius of my PC as beyond his power.

Quote from: SethwickThe problem is that such stories tend to be disjointed and schizophrenic. They look like they were written by many authors who weren't all working together. And, of course, they were.

Elaborate. Because frankly this makes no sense at all.

QuoteNow, my ideal RPG, as a player, is not one where all the players work together, it's a system where everyone competes over the control of the story and that competition is focused by the system to keep the story coherent. As a GM, however, I like players to work together, and since that system, IMO, hasn't been created perfectly yet, I generally work that way as a player too.

This sounds schizophrenic and disjointed. Your last sentence(emphasis mine) is what GMs have been doing for years.

QuoteSince that conflict-drive-story creator hasn't been made (Although Capes is close), I do prefere some shared purpose among players. Yes, things aren't as crazy and unpredictable as a "traditional" game. However, most of the things a traditional game gives that my method does not are allready given to me by computer games and television.

Again you are not describing anything that does not go on in most trad rpgs. Your last sentence is well just....

QuoteI'm fine with things changing. However, if someone tells me an aspiration for their character, I generally won't change that or erase the possibility of it unless they tell me to.

Different playstyles I guess.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RElaborate. Because frankly this makes no sense at all.



This sounds schizophrenic and disjointed. Your last sentence(emphasis mine) is what GMs have been doing for years.




Again you are not describing anything that does not go on in most trad rpgs. Your last sentence is well just....



Different playstyles I guess.

Regards,
David R

Sorry, you're right, that last message is all over the place...

Tomorrow is my last final, after that I move back home temporarily. Then I'll have more free time and freedom of mind to think on this and try to rewrite that last message.

Quote from: SethwickNot telling you to play that way anymore than you are telling me to play your way. I'm trying to explain and question and learn. Sorry if I seem hostile about it.

But what I have given you if I say "I want to confront the gods and I want to win" is not the whole journy. It is an outline. A VERY brief one. It's also something quite different from how most games run. The fun is in filling out that outline. Also, just because the end result is likely known doesn't mean there isn't drama inbetween. Movies can be dramatic without twist endings.

Also, it doesn't mean it's going to be EASY to do. If I, as a GM, receive that request, I'm gonna make the result possible. Not easy, but certainly possible.

Also, if I tell you "I want to confront the gods and win" I'm giving you a goal. A goal is an intended ending. It IS the "happy ending" as you put it. So, really, you can't have a goal without "knowing" the happy ending, the happy ending is the goal.

What about the other way? "I want to confront the gods, refuse to back down in the face of their might, and be crushed."

 

See it this way, Seth. That player just handed me a goal that not only might overshadow everyone else, it might actually disagree with the cosmology of the setting... and it comes with a built in result that I am suddenly expected to make possible. Maybe not easy, but possible.  

By itself? Minor irritation, and one I would be just as happy to ignore. But you couple it with a second conceit, that the player should map out his happy ending.  First of all, I like my games a bit like life. Organic, unpredictable, and they don't necessarily 'end' when the curtain goes down. It ends when you die (cue theological sidebar discussion... ).  You apparently like your games like  a good book, in fact, you use book like terms when discussing them. Thats fine and dandy... for you.  

Since I like stupid analogies: Christmas? Is it more fun if you get everything on your list, or when people surprise you with cool gifts that you didn't expect?  Me, I'm partial to the second.  

Now, I got no problems with people that give out a gift list with carefully annotated points on it: Seth, get me a malibu barbie, preferably one with pink hair.  Not the ballerina barbie, or I'll shank you.

But mostly those people don't go around using terms like 'dead eyed non-holiday people who should do something better with their time' which is a pretty loaded judgement to make about someone who does things differently, eh?

As for the idiot who askes for the gods to crush him like a bug? Simple, first session of the game, first time he opens his mouth about anything deific, he catches a lightning bolt.   People who roleplay to 'lose' are dead eyed wastes of time who should be playing volleyball. Probably badly. :rolleyes: