Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. Yes, we can imagine that, and it is possible that this is the case. But that's all it is. A possibility. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. Well, we don't know that, do we. This is pure speculation. It's not uncreditable, but it's definitely not knowable. In any case, the players can make up for any lack of information by asking questions, and being proactive in the pursuit of the game that's offered. If they don't know what they need to know, then they can pursue an investigative approach. I don't accept the example of a chess game, or in fact any strategy game being applied to roleplaying, because they aren't the same kind of endeavour. Yes, information is critical in a political game, but I don't think you can apply the analogy of chess and games like that to it. Roleplaying games are more like stories. And, throwing oneself enthusiastically into the story is going to cover a multitude of sins. A player that is active in the pursuit of the story is likely to create the necessary situations that will lead to gathering the appropriate information. A surly, truculent and unresponsive player is going to create nothing except an aura of resistance. I believe that the tendency is to criticise the DM, who is the person who carries a much greater work load than any player ever has to, pregame, or in the actual running of the game. Players who are committed reduce that workload. A DM whose workload is reduced will be able to provide appropriate game information easier. On the other hand, players that are resistant about change increase that workload, and fulfill their own predictions. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. I don't agree. An enthusiastic party will see this as an opportunity to find out more about the world. They will also see this as an opportunity to play a different kind of game. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: > 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. I agree that the DM may have required the players to adhere to strictly to his storyline. But, I don't think it's clear that he was expecting too much of his party. One can't know what the player's are actually like, one can only speculate. In fact, we are speculating when we say that the DM is too strict in adhering to his storyline. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: > 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. I don't agree with this at all. It seems to me that the DM asked the players to describe how they were following the magistrate. Perhaps he wanted the player to contribute colour of their own into the scene. Perhaps he prompted the player, and the player replied with inappropriate action descriptions, or just simply took the action that took the least thought. One really can't know. But, merely because players react to the DM is no excuse for not thinking. If the only clever and interesting players are ones that respond to DM questions without reference to the story in front of them, then I suggest that this creates an uninteresting environment for roleplaying. In a recent game, a player whose character was in possession of an unlawful skill that probably needs no name was told that people who were proponents of that skill would be provided with lucrative occupation if they present them to a representative of the local Duke. Other players who had characters with the same kind of skill were told the same thing. The first mentioned player decided to have his character observe the proceedings from a rooftop some distance away. The other players had their characters line up in a small square, where they were led away and pressganged into the Duke's service. The first player addressed the information from a story point of view. The others looked at it as a board game. All the characters had the same amount of information (limited) about the political situation. It is part of the obligation of the DM to provide the players with threats through their own action choices. Following someone is a classic example. When a DM asks a player to describe what they're doing, it forces them to think about what they're doing, not blindly look at the numbers on their character sheet. It creates a greater sense of verisimilitude. Yes, mistakes happen. Sometimes, players do get the wrong end of the stick, and this sort of thing happens to everyone, occasionally. That's okay, it is, after all, just a game. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. It seems to me that this was a simple encounter that went horribly wrong. The idea was to uncover the corruption of a magistrate, and then move on to another part of the story, at least as I understand what was posted. Perhaps extending it in that fashion may have been warranted. I would have thought that his storyline was reasonable, though. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. This is a very good point. If only the magistrate had actually needed to use underlings. Instead, it seems he was making his way to an incriminating meeting. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. > Also true. But, a character in a Ludlum novel is working by themselves, whereas this is a group of people in a fantasy game with personal resources and skills much greater than any character in a Ludlum story. I don't think this analogy is appropriate, either. Yes, they are working from outside. On the other hand, they other characters to support them. Pavel Ivanovich wrote: >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. I think the players are probably committed. But, possibly they're committed to playing the only game they know. One might as easily say that they are hidebound and resistant. Perhaps they're not sixth graders. On the other hand, perhaps they are older and more insular than a younger player might be. Whatever, we can't really know. ---------------------------------------------------------------- GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
