Without knowing anything more about this game, it is impossible to make a
critical judgment on the DM's ability. That said, however, these points
remain.
1) A player doesn't have to play in a DM's game. They can vote with their
feet. Ultimately, losing players consistently is the only objective measure
available.
2) Having decided to play in a game, the player has a responsibility to
attempt the game offered. If player's only want to do the same old things
again and again, then the game becomes dull and uninteresting. The DM loses
interest in developing and creating new kinds of stories, and the players
have characters that offer little variation. In short, the game as a whole
is reduced to what might as well be some kind of board game or computer
interaction.
3) The DM has a responsibility to offer their players an interesting and
diverting game that stretches them in new and previously unexpected ways.
One might offer criticisms based on the information offered, but ultimately
the evidence of one disgruntled player is no real evidence at all. A player
that is prepared to offer a criticism of a game may, indeed, be offering a
valid point of view to the DM. On the other hand, they might just be unhappy
at suddenly finding themselves in a new kind of game. Some players are
profoundly conservative.
Based on the DM's comments, I believe that the story offered was a
reasonable one. It is a game set in Feudal China or Japan, where bureacracy
is a means by which one might achieve greatness. It sounds like a legitimate
story to me.
The only criticism I would offer is that I would let the natural course of
events devolve upon the players. I wouldn't try to nudge them into following
the episode. Instead, I would have the corrupt official alerted by the
bumbling attempt at stealth (stunningly pathetic, in my opinion). He would
conceal any evidence he could, and may even resort to assassinating anyone
who might be able to provide proof of his crimes. If it seemed reasonable, I
would promote the plans of the official, and have him appear later, more
powerful and a hideous threat to the party's survival and honour.
In short, it is unwise to MAKE players play the game you want them to.
Instead, let them play the game they would like, but attach a price. If
nothing else, this session strikes me as great foreshadowing for some vile
and cunning masterplan, the like of which would make Dr Fu Manchu's
moustaches curl in admiration.
-----Original Message-----
From: Ricardo, O Skimmer da Net
To: gmast@phoenyx.net
Date: Tuesday, 11 April 2000 20:10
Subject: Re: GM: Incompetent GM or Incompetent GM?
>On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Pavel Ivanovich wrote:
>
>> I found this note on another list and thought it might mix up some good
conversation here.
>>
>> -pavel
>>
>> Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 14:10:09 +0800
>> Sender: The Art Of Game Mastering discussion list
>>
>> I've been having some problems with my group. I run an Imperial-China
>> campaign, which of course involves some struggle with people in power.
(Even
>> martial arts movies involve important people.)
>> Recently my players haven't been too happy. The goal of their current
>> adventure is to find a way to depose the corrupt magistrate of a certain
>> city; doing so will restore (most of) their good status with the
Celestial
>> Beauracracy.
>(snip)
>
>
>
>> It's probably my fault for mis-judging the preferences and abilities of
my
>> players; however, as far as I can tell, all of them enjoy -- and are
>> successful at -- strategy games. These, obviously, can require extended
>> planning. My reasoning was that they should therefore be able to come up
>> with a good plan for completing this quest.
>> I'm not sure if maybe the reason this has gone on for so long is because
I'm
>> making it too hard, and giving them too little information and resources
to
>> work with.
>>
>> Here is what one of my players e-mailed me about the game:
>>
>> >If you'll allow me to make a suggestion on your game, don't give us
missions
>> >that require planning and strategy, because we're really not too good at
that.
>> >Maybe some puzzle-solving, but that's it. If you'll notice, the caves
with the
> I think that what is said here is plain obvious! For this player at
>least, strategy isn't one of his strong points and is, in fact, quite dull
>for him!
>
>
>
>> >demons didn't require any planning at all, and we enjoyed that. Neither
did the
>> >bandit camp, or the future session with Lloyd, Mike, and Emi. This whole
>> >magistrate thing just requires too much planning, since we can't exactly
>> just go
>> >into the palace and demand him to abdicate, and that's what's making it
really
>> >tedious for both you and us players. The result is that the players get
bored,
>> >and combat becomes the only way to break the slump, because they like to
flaunt
>> >their powers. I'm pretty sure that we won't get anywhere at all with
your
>> >adventure since toppling a monarch or ruler is just too complex a task
for a
>> >bunch of, well, treasure-hunters, and to be honest, I don't think I'll
>> return >to your game anymore.
> Here there's two choices dependent on what is going to happen hereafter:
>
> 1- The GM stays as he is with the campaign, probably risking loosing
>his players as they follow the one above (that is, if his opinion is the
>general opinion). If that's so the case, than nothing to worry.
> As one infamous person here in Portugal once said, we're "Proudly
>alone" and we're better that way...
> 2- The GM stops the current campaign or changes the solution as to
>turning more appealing to his players, subjecting himself to the whims of
>his players (good? not good? ...). If this is the case he could still beg,
>grovel or blackmail this player to continue in the game. Or he could just
>show him how the game has turned...
>
>
>
> >
>> I have found that my players are almost completely unsuited to this task,
>> and, surprisingly, were unable to perform certain actions that would have
>> greatly speeded up their progress.
>(snip)
>
>
>
>>
>> So... What do you think? Was I being unfair? Should I not bother making
my
>> players finish off this adventure? If I do make them finish it off,
should I
>> give them any assistant-NPCs? I'm really worried about this... :(
>>
>> -Sel
> It's really , in my opinion, not a question of being unfair... To me,
>being unfair is putting a task in front of your characters that they can't
>pull out with their current skills. That's being unfair!
> What happened, and if the GM REALLY wasn't knowledged of his players
>aptitudes and tastes (which he should have), was that a game type popped
>up that turned out to be boring... That doesn't mean the death of the
>party! It's an opportunity to the GM, as a GM, to prove himself as a good
>GM in bad situations to his players.
>
> Yes, one possible solution is to give the characters assistant-NPCs. But
>it's one that I sure wouldn't use! Why? Because what's in question isn't
>the fact that the characters can't finish the plot, but the fact that the
>players aren't having a good time!
>
> My other possible solution was to turn the plot to the players
>taste... How? Get the players email for a starting point. He considered
>the demons and the bandits camp as good. He doesn't like planing and
>such. So much required in this current plot...
> (In the next, Im going to assume the demons and bandit camp were more
>hacking and slashing, since I can't guess what type he was really refering
>to... If it wasn't... Just take the next as an example)
> The GM could get the magistrate to commit a REALLY BIG mistake exposing
>[all] his operation(s). So now it's to the Law to arrest him, but the
>magistrate has an backup plan prepared for his escape and somehow the
>players are aware of this.
> They could now turn this plan to the proper authorities rapidly ending
>the story here! Or, they could go after the magistrate facing some thugs
>on the way, 'til they get the Big Boss. What they do with him is up to
>them... They could turn him to the police or they could slash him just
>right there... Still restoring or not their good status with the Celestial
>Bureaucracy!
>
>
> He is a bad GM, in my opinion, if he stucks to the current plot and
>makes his players play it! Force your players into what you thing is right
>is NOT GOOD!
> But with his post he shows he cares. Making him a POSSIBLE good GM. If
>he so much likes that style of play, drop his current players and find
>others who like it as well.
>
>
>Just my input,
>Ric
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
