Quote from: Arminius;927446Not sure if you're disagreeing or elaborating on what I wrote. You're focusing on the second possibility I raised, but the examples you give are so extreme that players may balk at such "in your face" active GMing unless they're anticipating it and have bought into it.

This is where I have to insist you be very specific what you're talking about.

Are we talking about players who balk citing "My character wouldn't do this!"? Or are we talking about players who just refuse to play no matter how suited the adventure is for their characters? Because I don't think I've ever seen the latter case, and in any event there are a number of safeguards against it. For one, if your character can't get along with the party, your character is out of the party and effectively out of the game. I'm not running an entire session for a split party. Even failing that, if you're not going to play, you're not a player, and you're kicked out of the game. Pretty simple.

So let's talk about the guy whose character doesn't fit the hook. Fine. Balking is exactly what I have planned for. As I describe my technique, I've set up the "call" so now your in a spot to explain yourself. Here's where I find out what is important to your character. Now I present my backup hook framed in terms of what is important to your character. It's possible for the player to balk yet again if I missed something or failed to properly clarify the character's motive. I may have to think on my feet, but I get another chance repeating the process and presenting now a third hook with a clarified view of what fits the character.

If the player continues balking, no matter the hook, sooner or later I'm going to catch the player in a contradiction, at which point the "I'm just playing my character" is revealed as bullshit and I handle it the same as I handle a player who balks with no good reason. You're out of the game.

Either way, the player will eventually take the hook are be discovered as a trouble player, and the game moves on.

Quote from: DavetheLost;927447Initially refusing the call to adventure can be a fine thing in an RPG. Perhaps the plot hook the GM is dangling isn't intersting to the player, perhaps the character has no motivation to upset the status quo of his life. The GM and player need to work to present more tempting plot hooks or find convincing motivation.

I'm a big believer in providing multiple plot hooks for multiple types of adventures (a mystery hook, a combat hook, an exploration hook, etc). However, if most of the players decide to follow one particular plot hook, then all the players must participate. Either that or the disinterested player needs to sit out the session. You can't allow one player to control the party through the threat of a veto.

Hmm.  I don't think I've ever seen a player refuse an adventuring opportunity so they could stay home on the farm.

I've seen players choose Hook A, B, C or D, but that's not refusing the call, that's deciding what call they want to follow.
I've seen a group prefer more city-based adventure, as opposed to Indiana Jonesing it, but that's not "Refusing the Call" that's refusing a certain adventure...which is why you have more than one available.

Pulling a Luke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927485Hmm.  I don't think I've ever seen a player refuse an adventuring opportunity so they could stay home on the farm.

 ...uke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

I have seen it a handful of times (or at least variations of this idea like starting a salt empire). In some cases though, it was because the player legitimately wanted to farm (or mine salt). i've also seen players use it either simply to be difficult, or to convey their displeasure to the GM. Haven't seen the latter two in a long time though.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927485Hmm.  I don't think I've ever seen a player refuse an adventuring opportunity so they could stay home on the farm.

I have seen it with two specific players. Both of whom got a reputation for doing it among the local GMs. Eventually we just stopped inviting them to games.

Pulling a Luke on them would have required more engagement with the character and game setting than they were putting forth. So we gave the players The Bucket and never mind the characters. Like I said, why are you playing an RPG if you aren't going to actually play?

Refusing the call and then accepting it is fine. Refusing call A but accepting call B is fine. Refusing all calls then bitching that nothing is happenning gets you The Bucket!

Quote from: CRKrueger;927485Hmm.  I don't think I've ever seen a player refuse an adventuring opportunity so they could stay home on the farm.

I've seen players choose Hook A, B, C or D, but that's not refusing the call, that's deciding what call they want to follow.
I've seen a group prefer more city-based adventure, as opposed to Indiana Jonesing it, but that's not "Refusing the Call" that's refusing a certain adventure...which is why you have more than one available.

Pulling a Luke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

In all my years of GMing, I have had one PC who refused to adventure.  The player was in acting school (very much a wanna be) and he made a character who was "not the adventurous type."  He stuck to his guns and played in character, ignoring all hooks, to the annoyance of the group - who ended up leaving him behind.  That didn't solve it though as the player demanded spotlight time and a chance to show his acting skills.  After a couple of sessions I was going to ask him to leave the group, but instead decided to invent a railroad tailored to his character.  It worked.  However, the player remained a problem being hyper-focused on his character's personality to the detriment of the adventure and hogging spotlight from other players.  The guy just had poor social skills and couldn't see that the object was to have fun playing a game.  We never invited him back.

In short, my experience is that adventuring recalcitrance is not a real problem within RPGs, nor is it an inherent flaw in the IC simulationist approach to gaming.  It happens very rarely. If it does come up, it is most likely to simply be an issue with someone not fitting into the social dynamics of the group.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927485Hmm.  I don't think I've ever seen a player refuse an adventuring opportunity so they could stay home on the farm.

I've seen players choose Hook A, B, C or D, but that's not refusing the call, that's deciding what call they want to follow.
I've seen a group prefer more city-based adventure, as opposed to Indiana Jonesing it, but that's not "Refusing the Call" that's refusing a certain adventure...which is why you have more than one available.

Pulling a Luke on someone seems like you're breaking out The Bucket and giving them a swing until they correct their behavior.  To use that, the player would have to be recalcitrant to a level I've never seen.

Alas, I've seen that more than once. But those players all fall in two categories.
First category had nothing in mind for what they want to do, but just decided to run from all adventure. I just left them behind and made it clear I don't give a flying fuck about their spotlight time, the game is going to follow those people that are actually doing something. Of course, I checked periodically to see whether they had some ideas.
To date, only one had both refused all suggestions for adventures and had no ideas of his own, no goals for his character, and so forth. He's, how to put it, continually disinvited:).

The second category also refused my suggestions, but actually had an idea for what their characters wanted to do. Moreover, all of them have had very plausible ideas and clear goals. It just so happened that my "standard suggestions" weren't among the things that interested them IC.
As one of them put it, "while I'd like to chase the Missing Golden Bra of the Goddess of Perkiness*, my character has other priorities".
Truth to tell, players who have clear goals for their characters are actually my favourite kind;). I keep playing with some of those people.


*Yes, Gronan, I'm borrowing your example, because I don't remember what the refused adventure in question was.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;927498I have seen it a handful of times (or at least variations of this idea like starting a salt empire). In some cases though, it was because the player legitimately wanted to farm (or mine salt). i've also seen players use it either simply to be difficult, or to convey their displeasure to the GM. Haven't seen the latter two in a long time though.

I have seen players get sidetracked off the "Mercenary/Adventuring Life", that actually happens a bit in Warhammer, where you have characters whose career is literally Trader, and the Advanced Career exit they are shooting for is Merchant.  That's always been the thing with Warhammer, it's kind of implied by the Career system that you don't actually throw away your old life and hit the road as an adventurer til you die or retire.  The implication is that, kind of like CoC, you have a "Day Job" you're doing and adventuring is sort of a side thing.  But, if the entire group decides they want to settle down and take the manor a Baron offers them instead of Gold, then I'll pull out Harnmanor or ACKS and they'll get to build it, defend it, interact with the serfs, deliver the taxes, tithes and scutage to the Baron...and probably get ordered to troubleshoot some things in between.

But...if that means no one is following up on all the clues and information the PCs have about potential threats...those threats are going to do what they were always going to do, the world may become worse as a result of the PCs change of pace.  Not out of vindictiveness, just out of the world being played properly.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927333If my Conan game ever winds down...

I am totally off track here, but is this your RQ6/Mythras game, or are you running another system?  I am always interested in people's Hyborian Age games.

Quote...Yggdrasil/Keltia (I love those games even though the system gives me fits at times).

Still off track, but there seems to be very little info on these games out there and I can't hardly imagine more interesting settings.  Somebody should start a thread and teach me about these games.

Sorry for the digression.

Quote from: Madprofessor;927541I am totally off track here, but is this your RQ6/Mythras game, or are you running another system?  I am always interested in people's Hyborian Age games.



Still off track, but there seems to be very little info on these games out there and I can't hardly imagine more interesting settings.  Somebody should start a thread and teach me about these games.

Sorry for the digression.

I answered the Conan question here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;927550I answered the Conan question here.

Right, my memory is not a keen as it once was.

Quote from: Madprofessor;927555Right, my memory is not a keen as it once was.

No, I mean I JUST answered it by making a new thread.

Having a player refuse dangerous adventuring to stay at the farm pursuing personal goals in a narrative/drama-focused game like Sagas of the Icelanders is totally valid.

Having a player refuse adventuring in a adventuring-focused game like D&D or The One Ring ? Yeah, that sounds disruptive and potentially harmful to the group. Luckly, I never had a player like this.

Quote from: Itachi;927561Having a player refuse dangerous adventuring to stay at the farm pursuing personal goals in a narrative/drama-focused game like Sagas of the Icelanders is totally valid.

Having a player refuse adventuring in a adventuring-focused game like D&D or The One Ring ? Yeah, that sounds disruptive and potentially harmful to the group. Luckly, I never had a player like this.

Staying at home and pursuing personal goals like "seduce and marry the sathrap's daughter"  is totally a valid adventuring goal if you ask me:p!
Especially since other people have been impaled or merely beheaded for trying the same thing, depending on whether the sathrap suspected they might have managed to actually see her face before being captured...
And doubly so when succeeding on this leads to or prevents a war;).

Having a character who stays home on the farm because they are a farmer and do not want to be an adventurer can be valid roleplaying. I have had characters retire from active play to become farmers before. Having a player whose characters always and only want to stay home and farm while the rest of the group want high adventure is what is problematic.

Even worse is when the stay-at-home character is left behind by the group at the player's choice and then decides that he is bored so his character is going to shoot holes in the hyperdrive of the starship the rest of the group is planning on making their escape in as soon as they get back from the adventure. That one got the clown permanently disinvited. Sitting out and spoiling your own fun is fine. Getting bored of sitting out and deciding to spoil everybody else's fun is dickery.