Getting rid of XP can be helpful, but its not a guarantee. To be honest, the only indication we have that XP is a part of the problem here is because its mentioned in the thread title -- though nowhere else by the OP.
The OP says the problem player wants to have a special story all his own, but doesn't explain it any further. Is it that the problem player wants a motivation for following the trail? That is sort of like having a special story all your own, but doesn't mean that he is unwilling to follow hooks. Rather it means that his character is not interested in following hooks that have no apparent tie to his motivation.
We need to know what the character's (not the player's) motivation is. If the character simply acts as though he is wearing a Ring of Contrariness, then you have a difficult problem. If the character just doesn't find the particular hooks appealing, that is an easier problem to solve.
At the same time, I agree that there is a bit of a social contract implied in the game. The player should not intentionally try to disrupt the game (in my opinion). I certainly think that there is potential middle ground that can be reached, likely with a bit of work by both sides.
As an example, in a current campaign I am playing in, my character is morally grey. He follows a code and doesn't actively seek to break the law, etc., but certainly at the start of the campaign he was much closer to LE than LG. When a particular quest line came up that involved rescuing a bunch of strangers who really didn't mean much to my PC, my character was less than thrilled that the party wanted to go in that direction -- particularly since there appeared to be more pressing matters at issue.
As a player though, I went along with it, making sure that my character complained most of the way. Now, afterward, my character became even more adamant that we follow leads that actually pertained to the greater problem (at least as long as they presented themselves). If the party did continue to ignore my character, then eventually, as a player I would likely have simply retired the character (in other words, the character would have followed his motivations and left the party). In the end though, the GM presented sufficient leads that appealed to everyone (including my character) that the problem was resolved. In fact, even the quest that my character was not in favor of provided good RP moments as my character made sure to express his disagreement with the chosen course of action.
So Long Post Slightly Less Long. FIND OUT WHAT MOTIVATES THE CHARACTER
If they defeat something planned or not they should get something for it. Treasure, XP, and my favorite consequences.
The table seems to know a lot about the behind the scenes of your table. I would cut off the info. Don't let them know what is AP or homebrew what you have to make up on the fly what you have prepared. Some of this comes out anyway but don't broadcast it. Keep random thugs/guards/ect on hand if they run a way you did not figure you have enemies all set.
Even if you don't want to get rid of XP you can just keep track of it and let them know when you level up. You can also move them to the slow progression track and give out generously. I am running an S&S campaign and probably 50% of what we have done so far is actually other adventures and pieces of another AP. They have no idea and despite the extra content enemies and so fourth I still have to bump them the last few points to the next level when the plot calls for it.
Also one of the things I do is I expect that they give me some idea of what their goals in character or for the character are. This means I am not blind sided when they want to pull situation out of the blue. I have a character whose background was as a pit fighter. He figured the arena or underground fighting is a good way to earn rep and cash. He wanted to go seek out a match. That only threw me once. I keep a few level dependent colorful opponents at the ready and I work them in even when he does not seek them out so he does not derail things but still feels like that aspect of his character are getting some play and I can fit it in to the main plot.
Sometimes people will run in directions you don't intend. Let it run its course. If they cause trouble they get consequences. If they beat up some thugs and find out that they have no connection to the job they agreed to do they now have to get themselves back on track.
I do some down time gaming with them via email. Shopping for gear, or gathering information chit chatting with NPCs even private conversations with each other happen sometimes between sessions.
I think it depends on how blatant it is.
If it's...The Mayor has asked that you save his daughter which is in the old ruins of the church before she is killed...
1. And despite that, the player decides to take a trip to Magnimar...have them come back exiled from town, the daughter dead, and them neither heroes nor anything else.
2. If it's the town is under attack...and the player decides that they want to stay at the bar drinking...have the bar burn down and burn them up inside...time to reroll a character.
3. If it's hints that they may want to investigate a underground lair because weird things have gone on there, but the player wants to go wolf hide hunting in the woods instead...when they get back have them summoned to the mayor's residence.
If the player ignores that, and decides to go figure out how to build a shack near the river, let them build their shack, and then send some imps burn down the shack and run off laughing...and another summons from the mayor but this time indicate that there are imp problems.
If he still ignores that, and decides to run off into the woods trying to track down bugbear tracks, have them go to the dungeon which the mayor wants them to go to and have that inadvertanly be the lair they wanted to investigate...or maybe the player instead decides to go back to town and throw a party. At that party...have the Mayor insist on seeing the player on urgent business. Go to section 1.
They are free to ignore the quests, but things have effects.
Many players don't like being railroaded (I know I don't) and if they feel they are being railroaded, will do the exact opposite of what is being asked. At the same time, give them incentives to go. If they still don't do that, have them end up doing it anyways (for example, they find a dungeon...it just so happens to be the dungeon they would have been asked to go to already). IF they really are trying to NOT do what you need done...then have consequences for their actions. As per the example above, they never rescue the mayor's daughter, he's upset, the town's upset...she's dead...and they decide never to let you in the town again...
Talk to the player beforehand, but let them know that there isn't a railroad perse, but that there is an adventure you'd like them to participate in...and if they refuse the world around them it will procede and there will be consequences to their character.
So the players should write out the script of what they want to do then give it to the GM to run? Or are the players making it up as they go and expecting the GM to keep up? If the players are making the story, what is the GM supposed to be doing? Is the GM giving the players 12 opportunities to help out the local villagers not enough? If the players want to wander off into nowhereland, how should the GM adjust his campaign world? I'm honestly just not seeing how "the players should be telling the story" works.What if the players would rather travel into the great unknown? Or if they'd rather head off to the big city to join an adventurer's guild? Or if they would prefer to subjugate the villagers rather than help them? Or a billion other what-ifs.
I know I'm an unusual GM, but personally speaking I believe writing a script is one of the worst things I can do. Give the players a world and let them act on it as they see fit.
If all of the players do, I don't think it would be a big deal. And as long as they're happy wandering around a largely barren area fighting random encounters then that's great. Sounds to me like the OP is offering a decent number of choices and all but one player are having a grand ol' time. Sure there are a billion what-ifs, and if they're interested in chasing those down instead of playing the prepared material then maybe it's time for everyone to gather their stuff and choose a different campaign to run. The players may not be bound to the GM's story, but neither is the GM bound to make up whatever the players want.
Yes, Mulet, but why is he ad-libbing all the time? I don't care about the rest, why is the only important concern at the moment.
|
Yeah I kinda think that if his little side quests start to fail to give any story or wealth advancement he will stop grasping at straws. If I give someone several paths that lead to adventures but one dude is always trying to forge his own way then he is being disruptive, plain and simple. I don't like railroads but I also don't like tossing my time and effort as a GM into making "carrots on sticks" for the party only to have to wing it when one idiot wants to be a special snowflake by ignoring all of them. Thanks for the extra work, jerk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, Mulet, but why is he ad-libbing all the time? I don't care about the rest, why is the only important concern at the moment.Why does anyone do anything? Because they want to.
If you're not interested in his motivation, then I can't blame him. He must be doing the right thing, given the circumstances, then.
I'm still confused. What are the other four players doing the whole time you're playing one-on-one with the defector? Do they play Angry Birds on the couch for a few hours? Go out for pizza?
Or do their characters go with his?
|
The difficult part is what to do with your players running a published campaign that want to sidetrack. If everyone is okay with sidetracking, then slow the experience gain of the group down. Have it take longer. If they're okay with this, then problem solved.
If they aren't, and one person is attempting to go off on his own, I say let him. You can have a solo adventure with him where he earns his own experience, and when he gets back together with the group that has been doing their stuff and getting experience, he can QQ about it then. Playing in-character or not, he KNOWS he's being disruptive to the group (he reminds me a bit of Tidus from FFX, btw), as well as being disruptive to the DMs, and that's not cool. If he wants to go off and roleplay something, let him, but don't reward him for punishing the group by giving him an actual, physical reward for it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're not interested in his motivation, then I can't blame him. He must be doing the right thing, given the circumstances, then.Yes, Mulet, but why is he ad-libbing all the time? I don't care about the rest, why is the only important concern at the moment.Why does anyone do anything? Because they want to.
I have to admit, what you are describing here doesn't present any actual evidence that the player is suffering from Snowflake Syndrome. There are plenty of reasons as to why a character would not want to follow the carefully laid tracks. In fact, I would even argue that the Hunt is a classic example of a situation it really isn't all that obvious as to why characters would readily agree to it other than the metagame aspect of "well, the GM is throwing this hook out there, there must be some importance to it here".
Look at it from the PC perspective. We've just had a coordinated goblin attack on the town. The attack appeared to be comprised of goblins from different tribes who historically have not gotten along real well. Fortunately, we repelled it, but there's something clearly amiss here. Now some fancy-pants noble wants to "reward" us by going on a hunt?
Sure, as a GM who has read the module, I understand exactly why it was put there. Even most players will understand that there's likely more to it than just a recreational hunting trip, but its really not clear why. Perhaps, and I know this sounds crazy, but perhaps this particular PC felt that it was more important to actually look into what seems to be a very unusual situation that could well be the harbinger of something much more sinister.
Then, lets consider the Pancake Tavern. Why was it so important he stay there? Why can't his character seek out a different inn or as it appears, a good time? Unfortunately, it seems like your reaction (burning down the brothel) is only reinforcing the appearance that the game truly is on rails (his perception, not mine). Frankly, it seems plausible that from his perspective, what happened is:
GM: "Oh, you don't want to stay at the Pancake? You'd rather go to the brothel? Fine. The brothel burns down. What do want to do now?"
Now, to be fair to you, I actually am impressed by all the work you are putting into the campaign. Additionally, its clear that you do not simply follow the script so to speak, which is also admirable. At the same time though, we are only getting your side of the story since you have assumed that the only reason the player isn't jumping at the hooks offered is because he wants to be difficult. While it is certainly possible that this is the case, in my experience, its far more likely that his character simply isn't motivated by things like recreational hunting trips and dinners.
I will say that if you don't talk to your player AND listen to and take into consideration what he says, then the situation is unlikely to resolve itself in a manner other than him quitting.
I have to admit, what you are describing here doesn't present any actual evidence that the player is suffering from Snowflake Syndrome. There are plenty of reasons as to why a character would not want to follow the carefully laid tracks. In fact, I would even argue that the Hunt is a classic example of a situation it really isn't all that obvious as to why characters would readily agree to it other than the metagame aspect of "well, the GM is throwing this hook out there, there must be some importance to it here".
While not relevant to the GM, I find it bad form on a players part to not attempt to follow hooks, especially if everyone else in your group is.
The GM should be making hooks interesting and something that the PC want to go after of course, and tailoring to make the experience enjoyable is important.
However in my opinion, as a PC if everyone in your group is going after X and you say "My character isn't interested in X" you are not engaging in good role playing.
Like the article I linked earlier, the PC should go after the hooks the GM is presenting, and find a reason that they are interested in said hooks. In the end the player is in control of their character, and they are capable of seeing that this is the direction everyone else is going. This is especially important if you know you're playing an AP where the game is more on the rails then other games.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bad form or not, if it's disruptive, it's important to know why the player wants to go off on tangents. Addressing that want is how a lasting solution will be found.
Shrugging and refusing to look deeper will solve nothing.
If the player wants to be disruptive, then you tell him it's not acceptable and cut him off if he continues.
If the player wants more XP and treasure, then you explain how the awards will be structured. You then determine if he's trying to get more to meet the adventure challenges, or if he wants to leapfrog ahead of the other PCs.
If the player wants to follow the adventure but gets it horribly wrong, then you can help steer him back on course with little difficulty.
If the player wants to explore the world more fully, then that's great, and you might want to find a way to accommodate his side treks--he's interested in what you're doing, and that's a good thing.
This is so incredibly key in solving your problem, and you're showing no interest whatsoever in it, Mulet. If you're not interested in why this is happening, then you're not going to solve anything and all your weeks of preparation are wasted.
Bad form or not, if it's disruptive, it's important to know why the player wants to go off on tangents. Addressing that want is how a lasting solution will be found.
Shrugging and refusing to look deeper will solve nothing.
I completely agree.
While not relevant to the GM, I find it bad form on a players part to not attempt to follow hooks, especially if everyone else in your group is.
The GM should be making hooks interesting and something that the PC want to go after of course, and tailoring to make the experience enjoyable is important.
However in my opinion, as a PC if everyone in your group is going after X and you say "My character isn't interested in X" you are not engaging in good role playing.
Like the article I linked earlier, the PC should go after the hooks the GM is presenting, and find a reason that they are interested in said hooks. In the end the player is in control of their character, and they are capable of seeing that this is the direction everyone else is going. This is especially important if you know you're playing an AP where the game is more on the rails then other games.
I don't entirely disagree with you. And, to be fair, even if my character had seen no point in the hunt, I would have gone along provided that everyone else wanted to as well. However, I think its also clear that a lot of times, GM's and/or APs will throw out a lot of options at players that really are not important to the overall campaign and which are fine to be skipped. Now, those who have played or read RoTRL will understand that the Hunt is not one of those events, but if you are unfamiliar with the material (like hopefully the players are) then its easy to see where a player might view this as one of those "optional" endeavors. Sort of like playing the games at the Fair.
Now, while I would have gone along with the group if that was their wish, assuming that my character wasn't interested in the hunt for some reason, I also would have advocated for not wasting time, and to instead get on with the important, investigative stuff. If I lose the "argument", so be it.
What is concerning to me though is the bit about the Pancake Tavern. I'll confess that its been a bit since I read the first book, but I really don't recall that being all that important. Yet, the GM was pretty heavy handed in forcing the player back to the tavern -- for what looks like no apparent reason (to the player). I'm sure the GM had a reason. It may even be a good one, but I'm not yet convinced its something that could not have been handled if the PC went to the brothel.
Now the issue of the brothel is, itself, a potentially different issue. Certainly the desire to go to a brothel carries with it a particular tone for the style of game the player wishes to engage in. This is also potentially a style that the rest of the group and/or GMs may not be comfortable with. If that's the case, then it should be communicated to the player. Of course, it could have been easily communicated with a "While Sandpoint is a growing town with a bit of culture, it has not yet attracted that type of entertainment."
Keep in mind, I'm not saying that the player is clearly in the right, and that its clear that he isn't simply trying to be disruptive. Just that I don't think its clear what his reasons truly are. Pathfinder (like all P&P RPGS) is a cooperative experience between the GM and the players. While no one person's desires should rule all, neither should any one person's desires be completely disregarded, nor should an assumption be made that if one person appears to have a different desire, that it is simply an indication that he or she wants to be disruptive.
Mr. Fishy is going to help you out.
1 Get a Stick.
2 Hitta B!&%~!
3 Repeat as neccessary.
Or you could look to the reason for the wandering character. You posted "script" and "five weeks" and two DM's. Mr. Fishy thinks he may have found the problem. Your player is playing, get the stick.
If you have two DM's then have the wandering character wander around with DM #2. It you have to time do it outside the regular game. Remember to apply the timeline effectively. If he or she spends to much time abroad they miss campaign events and any Xp and treasure gained from that event. Award for his solo as normal, but he sacrafices campaign events for his side trek. He gets to be a snowflake and you get to discourage side treks without being a "bad DM".
The choice is still the player's pursue the campaign's main story or follow the side trek.
Help Mr. Fishy has been SMIRTHed
In fact, I would even argue that the Hunt is a classic example of a situation it really isn't all that obvious as to why characters would readily agree to it other than the metagame aspect of "well, the GM is throwing this hook out there, there must be some importance to it here".
Look at it from the PC perspective. We've just had a coordinated goblin attack on the town. The attack appeared to be comprised of goblins from different tribes who historically have not gotten along real well. Fortunately, we repelled it, but there's something clearly amiss here. Now some fancy-pants noble wants to "reward" us by going on a hunt?
When I played through RotRL, this is exactly the reaction our group had to the Hunt hook. None of our PCs wanted to do it, we politely refused, and I presume we never did whatever it was we were supposed to do there. Our DM rolled with it.
Frankly, if it's that important to the storyline, it's poor writing. The set-up screams "random sidequest to grind some XP."
|
|
It sounds like you have a very carefully laid out campaign:
A -> B -> C -> etc.
Nothing wrong with that. You're putting a lot of work into it. My current GM style is a lot more loosey-goosey due to just the sort of problems you're encountering, but I'm not going to tell you "you're doing it wrong" because that isn't helpful. I've done lots of prep before myself. I've combined prep and improv. There's lots of options, so keep an open mind, is all I'm saying. However, in your specific circumstances:
The easiest way to deal with a player constantly going "off script" is the "all roads lead to Rome" approach.
- If the plot was supposed to attack the Inn but he goes to the Brothel instead, then have the plot attack the brothel. Or have the plot attack the Inn and then the plot "spills over" into the brothel.
- If he's ignoring plot clues to go look someplace else, then have him find corroborating clues where he goes that lead him to the next area. Basically, make it so that he can't move without running into the plot.
- If the party follows one set of clues and he decides to hare off on his own, then have the party and him end up in the same place.
- If the plot is supposed to go A -> B -> C but he decides to bypass B and go to X instead? Then Make the plot go A -> X -> C -> B -> C, or re-purpose B into something else down the line.
If all else fails, hit him with the "Fickle finger of fate". The next time he goes off track, have him fall into a mess of Plot that sticks to him: he's the chosen one, or gets caught up in a prophecy, or is selected by the gods, whatever. Now he can't get away, because the plot comes to him no matter what he does.
That last one is kind of drastic, though. Might not end well. :)
Actually, there is one other option: have the plot ignore him.
- So the plot is supposed to attack the Inn, and he goes to the Brothel instead? Fine. The plot attacks the Inn. Nothing happens at the brothel. Maybe he tries to start some action at the brothel, like a fight or something? Don't engage with it. Tell him "Okay, you start a fight at the brothel" but don't bother roleplying it or mapping it out. Keep the focus on those players who are following the plot.
- If the plot is supposed to go A -> B -> C but he decides to bypass B and go to X instead? Fine. Nothing's happening at X. He can try Y, but nothing's happening there either. Although everyone there is talking about what's happening back at B. Maybe he should get over there?
Granted, that's really passive-aggressive and you'll probably get the stink-eye. I wouldn't make a habit of it.
What is concerning to me though is the bit about the Pancake Tavern. I'll confess that its been a bit since I read the first book, but I really don't recall that being all that important. Yet, the GM was pretty heavy handed in forcing the player back to the tavern -- for what looks like no apparent reason (to the player). I'm sure the GM had a reason. It may even be a good one, but I'm not yet convinced its something that could not have been handled if the PC went to the brothel.
I may be wrong, but I think I read somewhere (in one of the posts) that it was back when they were trying to form the party. Burning down the brothel seems excessive, but when everyone else is meeting in the tavern to start the beginnings of their group and one player decides to not do that it makes the campaign more frustrating.
Again, it goes back to this attitude of "My character isn't interested in X", when everyone else seemingly is. The player has to have been aware that he was the only one not trying to form the adventuring party, and also be aware that this is in fact a group game. Had this instead been "I join up with everyone at the tavern, but afterwards my character is hitting up the brothel" he would have essentially what he wanted without diverting from the group. Heck, if his character is a loner type, he could have complained about the "inconvenience this group business is putting on his brothel time", and would convey the same type of character without being a hindrance.
Now if I'm wrong and this wasn't the reason, the burning of the tavern seems arbitrary.
I don't get it. If he's not following the script, there are still other players. So there are two possibilities:
1. He's going off by himself, and the others aren't. Solution: Play out the game with the other 4, and have a solo PBP game with the loner, until he rejoins the group or gets killed. Depending on your time, this PBP might be one post a day or one post a year. But if he's not in the same game as everyone else, so be it.
Well, except when a player does #1, He gets told. "You find nothing of interest, no encounters" over and over and over until he gets the point. There's no story, no adventure, no eps until he joins the Party of Adventurers.
In fact, I would even argue that the Hunt is a classic example of a situation it really isn't all that obvious as to why characters would readily agree to it other than the metagame aspect of "well, the GM is throwing this hook out there, there must be some importance to it here".
Look at it from the PC perspective. We've just had a coordinated goblin attack on the town. The attack appeared to be comprised of goblins from different tribes who historically have not gotten along real well. Fortunately, we repelled it, but there's something clearly amiss here. Now some fancy-pants noble wants to "reward" us by going on a hunt?
When I played through RotRL, this is exactly the reaction our group had to the Hunt hook. None of our PCs wanted to do it, we politely refused, and I presume we never did whatever it was we were supposed to do there. Our DM rolled with it.
Frankly, if it's that important to the storyline, it's poor writing. The set-up screams "random sidequest to grind some XP."
I GM'd it. It is not a requirement to advance the story. I thought about not even using it when I ran it.
Well, except when a player does #1, He gets told. "You find nothing of interest, no encounters" over and over and over until he gets the point. There's no story, no adventure, no eps until he joins the Party of Adventurers.
That's maybe how you personally would handle it, but it's not the only way. I'd do it more like I said in the quote.
But neither of those is actually important compared to how the OP does it, which still isn't at all clear to me.
I may be wrong, but I think I read somewhere (in one of the posts) that it was back when they were trying to form the party. Burning down the brothel seems excessive, but when everyone else is meeting in the tavern to start the beginnings of their group and one player decides to not do that it makes the campaign more frustrating.
Ahh, if that was the case, then I missed it. I'll admit I've never had a problem with party formation (i.e. getting them all to at least be in the same spot at the start) but then that's because I think that is one area where it is perfectly acceptable to be heavy handed as the GM. "So, you're all sitting in the Pancake Inn when a mysterious stranger walks in and says . . ." Or, "You're all traveling on the ferry that crosses Lake Plothookacomin when . . . "
This is also why I generally put the onus on group formation on the players. I tell them they need to come up with a reason as to why their characters are all running together. Maybe they are an adventuring company. Perhaps they are all childhood friends. Or maybe they are just all part of the City Watch. Either way, it gets around the problems that can be created when you try to simply force the PCs together. This is also though something that isn't exactly obvious when it comes to GM'ing, so its easy to run into this problem.
And yes, the Hunt can be easily skipped. The importance of the Hunt is to get the party to remember Foxglove, which isn't an entirely disruptive thing if it doesn't work.
Well, except when a player does #1, He gets told. "You find nothing of interest, no encounters" over and over and over until he gets the point. There's no story, no adventure, no eps until he joins the Party of Adventurers.That's maybe how you personally would handle it, but it's not the only way. I'd do it more like I said in the quote.
But neither of those is actually important compared to how the OP does it, which still isn't at all clear to me.
True and he seems rather coy about answering questions.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if this is what it is, but it sounds like it might be.
I have had players bring characters that (while staying entirely in character) are very difficult to get 'into' the group.
Example Once a player brought a lizard folk druid that was CN, anarchist, hermit, that cared for nothing except his swamp and its denizens. He played it wonderfully in character. Problem being that no matter what plot hook I offered it was refused, "Shrush not care about farmers... Shrush hope Mayor does look bad... Shrush no like mountains... Shrush think it good that boats sinking... Undead no come to swamp, why Shrush care?... " Yes, it was all in character. But it doesn't work well as a part of a group of adventurers.
Eventually, the other players and I got tired of continually trying to cajole, convince, bribe, and pamper Shrush for every single thing.
They started saying, "We're going to do this, feel free to sit in your puddle."
Then the player would say, "I'm just playing in character. Shrush wouldn't want to do that."
The others would say, "And we're just playing in character. JJ wouldn't keep trying to talk you into doing things you clearly don't want to do, to help people you clearly don't care about, for rewards you clearly don't want."
"The GM just sucks because he couldn't motivate Shrush"
Uhmm... No. I made a huge effort, but nothing worked. An antisocial hermit works well in a novel because the author can make sure he decides to go along with the story anyway. In an RPG it tends to fall flat.
I now tell the players before a game. I will throw a reasonable number of hooks. But I am not responsible for your motivations. You need to find a way or bring a character that can be a part of the team.
|
One PC started creating "Backup Characters", and began to detatch from his Paladin and not really care about the game, and screw around on his phone during sessions. So I reminded him of the rule that replacement characters come in with peasant clothes, 40gp and the XP of the former character and that's it.
But of course, every game is different, and runs to different tastes.
What. If someone doesn't enjoy the character they are playing, they get to either suck it up or come in as a sidekick? Your campaign seems to have more problems than your inability to motivate players.
It's not your job to prevent a player from skipping a plot hook. It's definitely possible to have an OoC discussion with the group so that people create characters that are more likely to follow the hooks, but if you didn't make it clear what kind of game this was and what kind of personalities would best mesh with the railroad you want, then it's your failing as a GM.
Putting more blame on bored players is really just going to make the game less fun for everyone.
Well one thing I am hearing from the examples is that he is slow to work with/trust/the other PCs. I would wonder why this is a problem. Shouldn't the other PCs have an opinion on the the actions of this guy. I mean does the Paladin of Erastil really want to travel with "someone of reprobate morals." I mean I expect my table to play nice. But I also expect them to RP. Sometimes that is getting to like one another and work well together. Other times that is argue grit your teeth and learn to begrudingly work together.
In all honesty if one player wanted to not join the whole team even to just tag a long. Okay. Run the adventure as written and describe what is going on for him once every 20 minutes.
The party goes on the Foxglove Hunt
Snowflake: "I am not going sounds lame creepy rich snob wants us to run around the woods after a goblin attack . . . sides I heard the madam of the old brothel is looking for an investor or at least customers maybe she has a tent."
DM: Okay. As the rest of you get ready to leave for the hunt you notice Snowflake uninterested wants to stay in town.
20 minutes of the hunt go by
Snowflake: What's going on in town.
DM: You hear lots of hammering they are repairing goblin attack damage.
He has removed himself from the action. Now if he decides he wants to rob a store or pick a fight at the bar that's fine just break up the action. So he is not grandstanding.
LOL ninja'd by Licoln similar examples LOL
Dealt with this a few weeks ago in my Skull and Shackles game. We have a dwarven sniper who thinks it's a good idea to scout alone without telling anyone. When you have a darkened map with fog of war it really helps to hammer home what awaits in the darkness. Said dwarven sniper walked right into an ambush in some sea caves and now my players are trying to keep track of him rather than me having to remind him "What happened the last time you decided to wander off?"
In short nearly kill the pc... nearly is the keyword. It will get your other pc's to try and keep track of them. Status on them while they sleep late, and if they wander off use that wandering to advance your plot. Just move things to where the pc wanders. I haven't had to mention the ambush in 3 weeks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should think about letting your game be the PCs story, not your story. When I play, the most flustering thing in the world is when it becomes apparent that the GMs story will go forth no matter what and we are merely spectators to it. Even when it is a great story (and in these situations it often is) I hate it. If I want to experience someone else's story I'll read a book, when I roleplay I want my characters decisions, motivations, successes and failure to drive the plot.
It IS the GM's story. Fortunately, the PC's get to be a part of it. If they 'hate' being a part of it, then they should't be, plain and simple. The GM doesn't work for them, and deserves to enjoy the gaming experience just as much as they, especially considering the amount of work they put in.
I GM and play about 50/50, splitting time with one other in our group. I play in this group and with the GM because I can't wait to play through the stories and campaigns they write - if I felt otherwise, I wouldn't bother with it, and I certainly wouldn't go to the trouble of trying to derail the enjoyment of others in the process.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It IS the GM's story huh?
I'll have to remember to ask prospective GMs about that in the future, to be sure I don't get stuck with one with that philosophy.
(No offense intended- there's nothing WRONG with following that philosophy, it just sounds miserable to me personall- both from the perspective of playing in such a campaign and imagining running one that way.)
Please do. Those GM's deserve to know ahead of time if you're going to respect the story they spent so many hours working on and putting together for you, or if you're going to try and derail the entire thing by going off on your own - as the OP illustrates - and expecting them to ditch their labors in favor of 'winging it' for your personal amusement.
(No offense intended - there's nothing WRONG with following that philosophy, it just sounds miserable to me personally - both from the perspective of playing in such a campaign and imagining running one that way)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think both kyrt and wiggz have a point. My take on it is this:
The GM creates the setting and sets the stage, including general plot points, npc reactions, etc. However, its the PCs that drive the story.
As an example:
As the party is sailing the seas in their newly acquired ship, they see another ship that appears to be struggling. Coming up on the ship you notice that the crew looks famished and the ship is damaged but salvageable -- and potentially much better than the PC's current ship.
Now, the GM has set the stage, but its up to the PCs to decide if they are the "white knights" of the seas, helping make repairs and sharing their food, or if they simply take advantage of the hobbled ship, capture its crew, loot the ship for any valuables left and ultimately commandeer the soon to be better ship.
Both actions should have consequences. If they help the ship, they gain a potentially powerful ally and word of their good deed will spread as they gain standing among other sailors. Of course, enemies might use this information as a means to lure the PCs into an ambush. On the other hand, if they take over the ship, news will also spread. Other sailors will distrust them, etc.
So, I side with kyrt in that its up to the PCs to determine how to drive the story based on the info given, but I also side with Wiggz in that I'm not a fan of the absolutely empty sandbox. i.e. "Okay, party, what do you want to do today? Where do you want to go? Off to Magnimar? Alright, let me consult the random encounter tables . . . "
I think both kyrt and wiggz have a point. My take on it is this:
The GM creates the setting and sets the stage, including general plot points, npc reactions, etc. However, its the PCs that drive the story.
As an example:
As the party is sailing the seas in their newly acquired ship, they see another ship that appears to be struggling. Coming up on the ship you notice that the crew looks famished and the ship is damaged but salvageable -- and potentially much better than the PC's current ship.
Now, the GM has set the stage, but its up to the PCs to decide if they are the "white knights" of the seas, helping make repairs and sharing their food, or if they simply take advantage of the hobbled ship, capture its crew, loot the ship for any valuables left and ultimately commandeer the soon to be better ship.
Both actions should have consequences. If they help the ship, they gain a potentially powerful ally and word of their good deed will spread as they gain standing among other sailors. Of course, enemies might use this information as a means to lure the PCs into an ambush. On the other hand, if they take over the ship, news will also spread. Other sailors will distrust them, etc.
So, I side with kyrt in that its up to the PCs to determine how to drive the story based on the info given, but I also side with Wiggz in that I'm not a fan of the absolutely empty sandbox. i.e. "Okay, party, what do you want to do today? Where do you want to go? Off to Magnimar? Alright, let me consult the random encounter tables . . . "
To be fair, I think what the bard is doing is slightly worse then that. It's more like:
"As the party is sailing the seas in their newly acquired ship, they see another ship that appears to be struggling. Coming up on the ship you notice that the crew looks famished and the ship is damaged but salvageable -- and potentially much better than the PC's current ship...
bard: Hold on, I didn't go sailing with everyone else, so I'm not there.
GM: Why?
bard: Because my character is doesn't like sailing, I want to go off and explore the wilderness.
GM ooc: Wait, I told you I wanted to run a pirate campaign
Bard ooc: I know you just have to make the hook interesting to me. Maybe a little bonus xp for a few side quests to get my character interested will do it
GM ooc: ????"
It's one thing to make decisions in a plot hook, that a GM didn't forsee, but it's kinda another when the PC decides they're not interested in a plot hook, even though the rest of the party is. This is especially true of AP's. When you're playing an AP, you've got to be aware that it'll have more rails then your typical game, and going off the rails removes the entire purpose of the GM using an AP. Going off rails will also frustrate your GM to no end, since the AP's a waste of money at that point.
To be fair, I think what the bard is doing is slightly worse then that. It's more like:"As the party is sailing the seas in their newly acquired ship, they see another ship that appears to be struggling. Coming up on the ship you notice that the crew looks famished and the ship is damaged but salvageable -- and potentially much better than the PC's current ship...
bard: Hold on, I didn't go sailing with everyone else, so I'm not there.
GM: Why?
bard: Because my character is doesn't like sailing, I want to go off and explore the wilderness.
GM ooc: Wait, I told you I wanted to run a pirate campaign
Bard ooc: I know you just have to make the hook interesting to me. Maybe a little bonus xp for a few side quests to get my character interested will do it
GM ooc: ????"
My answer:
GM: I'm not doing extra XP. I'm going to focus on the ship today, so I won't waste your time. You can leave.
Bard: What? No, you only have to do a side quest.
GM: Which I'm not doing. Leave.
Bard: Um... Okay, I'm on the ship.
GM: Really? Because it sounded like you want to have more than the rest of the party. It sounds like you want to be a problem.
Bard: Me? No! No problem. I'm on the ship!
The players are given a stage, presumably because they want to be in the show. If someone insists on repeatedly leaving or trying to change the scene, then the rest should be tugging back, I think.
Are other players having a problem with this? I realize you've budgeted freedom into your Gattacan utopia of documented and back-edited fun, but is it working overall? If it's one of those situations where one person is clearly at odds with the flow and everyone else involved, then I'm surprised an exasperated player hasn't said something. At our table, in-character (gentle) mocking (at first) of another's refusal to play along would wrangle such behavior into acceptable parameters. Are your players doing their part to improve this, or is "it's my character" so sacrosanct that no one feels they can say anything?
That said, I don't know how to cure abject self-centeredness.
... is "it's my character" so sacrosanct that no one feels they can say anything? ...
I do see this occasionally.