I can understand your reticence to conclude that there's a problem with the way that the GM is running the game, but I can imagine how this sort of thing might have gone so wrong in the first place.

This is a GM who has made a shift in game style, and his players are being a little slow to catch up -- but it's also his first time running this sort of game.  He believes he's offering the sort of game that would appeal to his players because they like strategy games, and yet they don't like this game -- what could the problem be?

In a strategy game, the players know all the rules, the way pieces interact with each other.  Chess players with any real commitment are able to plan many moves ahead and plan for what their opponents will do, based on the way pieces work together, what they know of their opponent, etc.  In a game of political intrigue, the same sort of strategy is possible, but only for those who have the same sort of knowledge of the pieces in play as a chessmaster -- and I'd bet my savings (albeit not a whole lot) that the players in this game don't have that sort of information at their disposal.  It's hard to expect them to strategize when what the GM is really asking them to do is read his mind.

I think that these sorts of expectations may just be too much for a roleplaying game -- any group of players, no matter how good, unless they're working in a very well established world that they all have a very intricate understanding of.  It's also clear from the original post that the gamemaster is expecting too much from his players -- too much adherence to his plan for the adventure.  Maybe this particular tail wasn't a great idea, but give the players a little credit.  The only reason they made such a spectacle of themselves was the scrutiny that the GM put on them in the first place.  Players react to what the GM says, and read a lot into everything, because that's all they have to go on, and what they get from that over analysis may not be what the Gm intended for them to understand.

As far as getting out of the mess goes, I would consider a couple of options.  The first would be a tutor of some sort -- someone who is able to help the players see the court, the magistrate, and his allies, and the way they all influence each other.  The players need that information to be able to do a good job in a strategic political adventure.

Also, make sure that the whole effort to over throw the magistrate is something they build up to through several smaller steps -- expose a weakness here, eliminate and asset there -- little things that they can do to get a little more information and to move incrementally toward their goal -- some sort of steps toward stheir goal will help players feel like things are going well.

Another thing:  The bad guys make mistakes.  It doesn't have to be as grand a deal as leaving an automatic laser to kill James Bond, figuring the ropes you tied him in will hold him.  But part of being a powerful person is being forced to delegate responsibility, and every tiome you delegate, you take risks.  Simply by definition, your underlings are not as smart and clued in as you are.  Or, at the very least, some of them are not.  There must be a weak link.

Read some Ludlum.  One book is enough, they're all pretty much the same.  In each one a character is dropped accidentally into a web of intrigue, and he brings the whole thing down.  But he's initially dropped into a position where he is able to do some damage because he's working from within.  These chracters are working from without, without access to the power sustem or information on what's going on.  they need that information to be able to make those sorts of plans. 

Give the players a break -- they've been coming back for five game sessions in a row, for a game that's dead in the water.  They care.  They're good players.  It's not like their sixth graders with attitute problems who refuse to learn to read because it isn't cool -- they're there, playing.  They WANT to succeed.  They're doing their best.  The GM needs to fill in the rest if he wants them to keep coming back.  He's the one with all the cards, after all.




> 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.
> 


____________________________________________________________________

For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com

____________________________________________________________________

----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page:  http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/