Players And Metagame Issues
Doug Dawson
and how much players should be involved with them. What I'm
specifically curious about here is how many people have had problems
with players 'bumping into' metagame issues.
I suppose I should mention first that my group is thoroughly mixed
as far as dramatic/simulationist/plot/world/whatever. I think I'm
known as the most 'plot-based' GM, despite the fact that I depend fairly
heavily on the existence of background plots and events, grinding
along at something more-or-less like their own pace. (The most
'unplotted' GM is the one who runs Warhammer straight from old D&D
modules...after he removes the plots from them, that is).
David Berkman has often commented on 'plot is character', which I
think most people take as something along the lines of:"good plots
flow naturally from the dramatic necessities of the characters."
What happens when the players are a bit too aware of this?
(Poor phrasing. I'll try for better.)
In our group, if the GM just wants to be 'world-based', the PCs nearly
invariably just sit there, wondering what they're 'supposed to do.'
On the other hand, if I have an event occur which should _matter_
to the party (like having creatures known as gospog show up...one
of the PCs is dedicated to wiping them out), people start muttering
"Plot hook...plot hook."
Any comments or suggestions?
------
More recently, I had a PC act on what I can only conclude is the
player's familiarity with stock fantasy situations. Upon encountering
a powerful-seeming undead creature (the first the character had ever
encountered) this PC immediately began running around the room,
apparently having decided that this thing was too powerful to defeat
in straight combat from its appearance, searching for the secret key
to its defeat (Actually, if he had helped in the attempt to destroy it,
it would have been destroyed much quicker.).
Still, it was rather humorous...
PC: I rip the tapestry from the wall!
Me: You see...a wall."
PC: I threaten to burn the tapestry, shouting
'I'll send your soul to hell!'
Me: He stares at you in confusion.
Other PC: I do too.
PC: I search the coffin!
Me: It's nicely lined and has a pillow.
PC: I search the pillow!
Me: It's a pillow.
PC: I threaten to burn the pillow!
Third PC: "I'll send your pillow to hell!"
Doug Dawson
: Hm, tough problem.
: It depends on what you think the bulk of your players really want.
There's the trick to it...despite the mutterings of 'plot hook' and
'This guy's a major character...we won't be able to kill him,' they
seem to prefer me handing them reasons to do things over just sitting
there. (One of my players really gets into the role, the others tend
to just go into tactical mode. I think some of them are learning how
much more enjoyable it can be to really get into it, though.)
[Pre-discussed plot advice.]
I like this idea, but my group is fairly strongly in favor of just
finding things out as they happen, and this correlates fairly well
with how 'world-based' (for lack of a better term) they are. As I sit
here and think about it, the ones who mutter 'plot hook' the most are
the ones with no good places for plot hooks on their own characters
(though as I said before, a couple of them have begun to tentatively
change, suggesting a couple of potential hooks).
Maybe the real solution, in my particular case, is simply to continue
giving more attention to the characters with _reasons_ to be
involved and subtly encourage the others to have things that matter
to them.
: ["I'll send your pillow to Hell!"]
: Some branches of the hobby have a very well-developed set of formal
: conventions: for example, if the monster is too tough to defeat there
: *will* be a tool nearby to defeat it.
Yah, this is what I think this guy was assuming. The thing is, in this
campaign, I haven't done much, if anything, on those lines. (The one
exception I can think of is when they were going to be running into a
creature that required magic to destroy and they didn't have any...one
of the PCs had a mentor with some precognitive abilities who provided
her beforehand with a magic weapon.)
: Your other players will probably get the point across (that you aren't
: using this convention) much easier than you could.
I hope so.
: Just a side thought: could "gospog" be a symptom of what's really
: causing your problem? Torg/Orrorsh practically requires characters to
: behave in the odd way you describe. If you've borrowed names from
: there, perhaps your players (or one at least) expects that you've
: borrowed the conventions as well.
Well, it actually is a Torg campaign...but the party has had essentially
no experience with Orrorsh (and this was an Ayslish undead, to boot),
and none that would suggest this course of action. Furthermore, I
happen to be fortunate enough to be the only one in the group who has
read _any_ of the Torg rules, so I'm pretty sure he didn't pick up the
idea directly from the books.
On the other hand, this player is the person who runs us straight
through old D&D modules, which is where I'm guessing he picked it up
from. This was the reason I mentioned it here in the 'metagame issues'
post, since it seems to be derived from old gaming conventions (as in
conventional practices, not game gatherings :) ).
Thanks for the advice; I think some of it is definitely applicable.
Doug
James
> In our group, if the GM just wants to be 'world-based', the PCs nearly
> invariably just sit there, wondering what they're 'supposed to do.'
> On the other hand, if I have an event occur which should _matter_
> to the party (like having creatures known as gospog show up...one
> of the PCs is dedicated to wiping them out), people start muttering
> "Plot hook...plot hook."
>
> Any comments or suggestions?
How can I resist?
I get the feeling your group is getting a tad jaded. Which means its time
start using their player instincts against them. Ever seen Hicthcock's THE
BIRDS? Anyone going to see the film is expecting 'the birds' to start
attacking people; its unavoidable. But Hitchcock didn't want his audience
prepared for 'the birds' attack as it spoils the effect. So the first part
of the film follows the intricate relationships between the main characters.
Slowly we are drawn into this story. We forget to expect 'the birds'. Which
is why ten 'the birds' make thier entrance it really comes as a shock.
Think about those situations where the players understanding of meta-game
issue could back-fire. For example a prolonged stretch of good luck will
make your 'clever' players extremely suspicious, expecting there to be a
'catch' somewhere. Say one of the PCs inherits a good deal of money. Then a
friendly domestic animal (cat, dog?) 'adopts' the party. An NPC the party
has helped in the past turns up and treats the PCs to a lavish dinner. Keep
on throwing colourful fluff at the party, the more elaborate the better. The
important thing is that all these incidents should be exactly what they
seem. After a while they shouldn't be able to recognise a genuine plot hook
from another bit of fluff. Of course this makes it much more likely that
they will ignore the hook; its the price you pay.
Which leads us nicely to the topic of running a world-based game. With the
argument still raging on what is aworld-based (or should I say
simulationist?) game, its somewhat risky to provide design guidelines. Still
, for what its worth, these are the best tips I came up with.
Tell them. It is unfortunate and not very elegant, but unless your players
are used to this kind of gaming style, you will just have to come out and
tell them how you intend to run the game. If the players are expecting a
'main plot' they may be reluctant to get involved in other activities.
Once that has been established, try a bit more colourful fluff on your
players. It keeps the group busy while they get to know the people and the
place better.
The setting needs to be one your players are comfortable with - modern day
being probably ideal. You can't expect players to show much initiative if
they don't know what options exits and which are socially acceptable.
You can also try to establish an NPC with pretty much the same
background/qualifications as the PCs. Use him as an example of what the PCs
could be doing, perhaps even instilling in the relationship a touch of
rivalry. I've never tried this, but it sounds like a good idea.
The most important thing to remember is that its not an all or nothing
choice. Most people will agree that the best games contain elements of both
styles.
Best of luck,
-- James --
Mary K. Kuhner
>In our group, if the GM just wants to be 'world-based', the PCs nearly
>invariably just sit there, wondering what they're 'supposed to do.'
>On the other hand, if I have an event occur which should _matter_
>to the party (like having creatures known as gospog show up...one
>of the PCs is dedicated to wiping them out), people start muttering
>"Plot hook...plot hook."
Hm, tough problem.
It depends on what you think the bulk of your players really want. If
they seem to want a plot-based game, but are reluctant to trust the GM
not to railroad, you might try setting up a scenario where the plot is
visible and agreed on in advance. "I'd like to do a game about some
people who move into a haunted house and have lots of trouble with its
former occupants. Sound interesting?" They are unlikely to say "plot
hook" when they see a ghost if it was part of the idea from the very start.
Then run it in a pretty world-based style, avoiding plotting, until you
think they've gotten over the automatic assumption that you're
railroading them. (And if they move out of the haunted house, let
them.)
If they seem to want a world-based game, it's harder (any advice or
hints you give will be seen as pushing towards "your" plot and you won't
be able to convince them you don't have one). Honestly, the best
solution I've seen to this is getting one solid world-based player to
act as party leader. Failing that, I don't know that there's anything
better than setting up an interesting background and then sitting like a
bump on a log, saying "well, what do you do next?" over and over until
someone picks it up and runs with it. It's very difficult to get
players to stop looking for "the plot". You might try asking for a
character design with a clear plan--not just sworn to destroy gospog,
but aware of a nest of them and planning to gather force and go destroy
it. Then sit back as much as possible and let the player figure out how
s/he wants to do this.
["I'll send your pillow to Hell!"]
Some branches of the hobby have a very well-developed set of formal
conventions: for example, if the monster is too tough to defeat there
*will* be a tool nearby to defeat it. I recall running afoul of this in
using a Dragonlance module to playtest a new set of rules. I thought my
characters were being clever by finding a way to get to the bottom
(where their objective was) without having to deal with the stuff up
above. Everyone died, though, because something up above was essential
to dealing with what was below...an experienced dungeoneer would never
have made this obvious error.
Your other players will probably get the point across (that you aren't
using this convention) much easier than you could.
Just a side thought: could "gospog" be a symptom of what's really
causing your problem? Torg/Orrorsh practically requires characters to
behave in the odd way you describe. If you've borrowed names from
there, perhaps your players (or one at least) expects that you've
borrowed the conventions as well.
Mary Kuhner mkku...@genetics.washington.edu