In a message dated Sun, 24 Dec 2000 1:31:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, The
White Crow writes:
>>Two things occur to me about this example of the way >>the game went.
>>1) The pcs said 'We KNEW there was going to be a >>Charmer'.
>Not the PCs. The players themselves. And only after
>I insisted that they play along with their PCs
>perceptions. They didn't say anything like "Ah,
>we'd discussed once a long time ago there might be a
>Charmer. This seems a bit strange to me. I don't >listen to his words, and
try to concentrate on the >fact that he's a bad guy." Or even, "Hey guys,
you >know we discussed whether this might be a Charmer --
>don't listen to him!" They never made any plans how
>to deal with it if their suspicions were true, never >actually mentioned
anythign to each other in char
>after the first discussion on who might be doing what
>(after they had nearly killed the first semi-mind-
>controlled guy they'd tracked down, several sessions
>before).
>
>Just the players complaining that they had to go along
>with this.
Okay...if you explained to them that they charmed in the first place, maybe
they would have role-played things a little better? In my experience, if you
tell a PC how their character feels, without this explanation, they'll rebel
against it. It's simply not the GM's job to tell a player how their
character feels about a particular topic/person/setting, etc. unless there is
a magical affect that is affecting the characters. In that latter case, this
should probably be explained when the affect first reveals itself (i.e. when
it is cast upon them, they enter the area of affect, etc.).
>>2) That the person involved said she felt a little >>frustrated that the
players didn't fall in line with
>>what she considered obvious clues as to the way the
>>game would be played.
>
>Well, yes.
My suggestion is that your clues were not necessary. A quick explanation
that they were being charmed should have been enough...if they still balked
after being informed that they were under a magical suggestion, well, those
players need to be proverbially spanked for bad role-playing.
>I understand this, but if the player is refusing to go
>along with the perceptions of the char (the >information is the purview of
the GM), then is it not
>up to the GM to step in? Just as you would when they
>aren't playing their Heroic quirks (we had that
>problem too. Yeah, it's really heroic to shoot the
>mind-controlled girlfriend of another PC in the chest
>with an arrow. But that's another story).
If they're not playing their Heroic quirks, then you certainly need to step
in (a problem I have in point-enforced disadvantages...it kinda spoils the
dramatic ideal of a dynamic character...unless you spend XP or something to
get rid of it). But that's a situation where the PC _should_ know better.
If they walk into a room and you tell them they feel creepy, you've failed as
a GM. Describe the room in creepy detail, with leering gargoyles and
lichen-colored flooring or something, but don't just tell them their
characters feel "creepy." That's a cop-out. In this situation, they had no
reason to feel the way you described, other than your description. If they
feel their characters are relentless in their pursuit of the villain and you
tell them they're not, they've got to have a reason supplied to them as to
why.
>I don't like telling the players how to play thier
>chars, but I think that when it is violating a part of
>the setting/genre, I *need* to do so. I just don't
>like it.
Well, if they're supposed to be good guys and are rummaging through the
coffers of the Grand Temple of All Good to supplementing their income,
they're not playing their characters. Basically, if they can't imagine
themselves as their characters and act like the game is a role-playing game,
you need to start docking XP. Explain to them why they're getting penalized
(for poor role playing). But, again, if you try to tell them directly how
they are acting, you need to deduct XP from yourself :) There's a very, very
fine line between expecting good role play and forcing the PCs to act in the
way you think they should act.
>My players are very good about going outside the
>planned areas. I'm not sure what this has to do with
>the question I had though...
That's a good thing (going outside the planned areas). Unless, of course,
you get the feeling that they're doing it just to spite you (in which case
you need to have a loooong talk with your players).
>Of course. But sometimes realizing that a task is
>unsurmountable is part of it -- they *were* dealing
>with someone out of their league...but instead of
>working within the char's perceptions ("I'm a nice
>reasonable guy...don't hurt me, be nice to me, turn me
>over to the authorities."), they remained
>belligerant. They didn't try and talk their way out
>of it -- and they refused to play it until I forced
>the mechanic.
Well, if they felt their characters would remain belligerent when confronted
with the central villain of the story, and had no reason to think they would
be acting otherwise (i.e. acting strangely because of magic), then they did
exactly what they should...play their characters.
>Maybe I'm not explaining what I feel is wrong very
>well. It's part of a larger picture too, which I
>hadn't wanted to get into since I know where
>the majority of *that* problem comes from, even if I
>have no idea how to fix it and there really is no
>advice anyone can give me that can help [1]
Not true...moving footnote to this location so it can be addressed...
>[1] Group dynamics is the issue. I'm really good
>friends with these people, but I feel that they get
>into a bad spiral...they don't like taking risks
>(boring), and their chars always have trouble with
>authority figures who don't worship them. Apart, they
>seem much better...but as a group it is the SOP. And
>it will be very hard for me to break up this dynamic
>without hurting feelings. I'm workign on it, bit by
>bit. But I'm in the position I've never had to deal
>with--they're your friends, they don't work in the
>game, and you *can't* just say "get out."
Okay...finding new players (my first inclination) isn't an option. No
problem. If they don't deal well with authority figures...no big deal. They
don't get the perks of being on the good side of those in charge and have to
deal with those consequences. If the authority figure in question is a "good
guy," he decides not to ask for their help on a particular quest (the night's
adventure is out the window), won't render assistance when they get into
trouble, etc. Maybe word gets around that they're mean-spirited anarchists
and prices in the local general store start going up (just for them, of
course). If the authority figure is a "bad guy," maybe he gets so insulted
as to have them arrested. Or maybe he hires an assassin to take the most
belligerent person out. The important thing to remember is that authority
figures are there for a reason. Either they're the most powerful person in
the region, are allied to powerful people, are well respected or are wealthy
enough to do what is needed.
As far as not taking risks...fine, let 'em go the safe path. Create a group
of NPC adventurers who take the risky adventures and show the PCs how
successful these guys are. Let 'em know that the two coppers they've got to
clink together are due to a desire to play it safe, while the gold the other
adventurers throw around regularly is there because they take the risks. Of
course, let them also know that with risk comes danger. Have a member of
that rival party die during a particularly hard adventure or what-have-you.
The basic premise here is that if they don't want to work within the confines
of society or take the risks that their profession requires, they need to
feel the effects of this. Maybe the adventure you had planned will never be
run, because they decided it was too risky. That's okay...that's one of the
challenging aspects of GMing.
>Yes, they are about "transparency" to some extent--you
>can't "share a fantasy" and do complex calculations at
>teh same time (IMO, of course). That's one reason why
>I generally play Fudge, and not Rolemaster or GURPS.
>To me, Fudge is generally pretty transparent. I made
>them make the roll so I didn't have to interrupt the
>tension/flow just to bring in the mechanic, hoping I
>could pull off the "mood" well enough I wouldn't
>have to use the mechanic at all. It didn't work.
Dice, in my opinion, are a necessary part of RPGs and can be used to create
dramatic tension in the players. Personally, I think trying to limit rules
and dice rolling to be a bit of an anathema to gaming (played Amber
once...thought it sucked). Don't get too much into the "collective
storytelling" side of RPGs; of course, don't make it into a video game,
either.
>In a world where anyone might have the possibility of
>mind control, it isn't a DEM to have the NPCs have it,
>anymore than it would be if the PCs had it.
I don't think mind control is a DEM, as long as it is used sparingly. If
every villain they run across can do it, it's over-used. That doesn't seem
to be the situation in this case, so I'll let this part of the discussion
drop.
Hope this helps...I'd like you to explore the over-all problem you're having
with the group in a little more detail. There's no such thing as a problem
in gaming that can't be solved through discussion. Speaking of which, have
you talked to your players about any of this yet? An open and honest
discussion between friends might go a long way.
Lucifer >:}
----------------------------------------------------------------
GMAST Home Page: http://www.phoenyx.net/gmast/
