overgeeked
B/X Known World
Stop doing them a favor and walk.
Ask the two decent players if they’re interested in gaming some time.
Ask the two decent players if they’re interested in gaming some time.
Well, the idea is that there’s only one ogre (maybe the party doesn’t have the resources to handle two), and his location, rather than being fixed, depends on where the players go.So put an ogre named Bob on the left fork and an ogre named Fred on the other. No problem.
It's okay, when Bob heard what happened to Fred he packed up and got the hell out of Dodge.Well, the idea is that there’s only one ogre (maybe the party doesn’t have the resources to handle two), and his location, rather than being fixed, depends on where the players go.
I wasn't going to respond to this because you don't seem particularly interested in having a dialogue given your post is in the form of a meme, but I wanted to say I'm a bit surprised at this response for a couple reasons. First, the OP doesn't sound to me like an instance of OSR-style play, so a discussion of OSR seems a little off topic. Second, my understanding of OSR is that while it isn’t concerned with balance and fairness, it does value testing the players' skill with reference to their engagement with the fiction. If something is not included in and can't be worked out by the players from the fiction as presented, e.g. they have no way of knowing about the healing potion in the orc’s sack until it’s too late to do anything about it, then they can't bring their skill to bear on that aspect of the fiction. Its introduction can only serve to change the parameters of the challenge which can have the effect of invalidating the test of skill the encounter was meant to represent because it negates the players' progress in wounding the orc. Although I don't think the players as described evince OSR sensibilities, I think their objection stems from a feeling of the DM pulling the rug out from under them and that the introduction of the healing potion served no other purpose in the game.{Laughs in OSR}
Not that they would say so, many players with this stance are doing a sneaky exploit.I’ve certainly seen players who dislike DMs changing things on the fly, like adjusting monster HP behind the screen, and “quantum ogres” are a pretty controversial technique. What’s odd to me is this stance combined with a strong preference for improvised content. I suspect there’s a miscommunication going on between the players and the DM here.
Sounds like you’ve already made up your mind about what you think these players want.Not that they would say so, many players with this stance are doing a sneaky exploit.
Many average DMs play only by-the-book. So anything they improv will be right off the page of a rulebook. And anything from a rulebook will be objectively weak, and maybe more so will be generic. No orc by-the-book uses a whip or a crossbow, for example. The big exploit here is nothing improved will ever be "made" or "adjusted" specifically to the PCs.
Many average DMs are unable or unwilling to improv anything even slightly powerful. Many simply don't have the rules or system mastery to do so. Many more simply don't want to do it: they want all foes in the game to be easy minons for the players beat.
And even many good DMs simply don't have the memory or recall ability to improv things with any skill or ability.
Because it is seen as a form of cheating, breaking the gentleperson's agreement, "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further" type stuff. Even if you don't agree with that interpretation (and I'm 100% certain you don't agree!), that's how a significant group of people are going to feel. Choosing to respond to that feeling with "well you're just being irrational/wrong/whatever" is generally counterproductive.Well....game over. They found and fought the orc brothers....and TPK. So, on to a new campaign...
My question was not really about this game, or the three players. It was a more general question. Really any time I encounter fifth generation type gamers I run into the creation problem.
So many players have this odd Player Rule they want DMs to follow: The DM may not alter or change an encounter once the encounter starts. Of course, in any traditional game the players would never know...but many more neo DMs tell their players everything. Though in any case the players will always say "it's wrong" and the DM "must not do it"
But why? To me, it seems silly and pointless. Even if the DM did not add something to an encounter, they could just do so in the next encounter. So for the players to get all worked up over "DM you are forbidden from changing encounter four!", but then saying "Oh sure DM you can make encounter five anything!"
I'm not really sure how this is relevant?So anything I create will have a ton more stuff then nearly all players can even dream of...
Well, I hate to break it to you, but it kinda is almost impossible to tell the difference between "I thought of this five minutes ago" and "I'm just blocking your clever plan with something that popped into my head after you said it." As a player, the two can look nearly identical. Put yourself in a player's shoes; the GM has, three times now, nixed a plan you thought was smart, because of something they claim was there in their head five minutes ago. What evidence do you have of that claim? How could you tell the difference between that and said GM just fiat declaring "no" and pretending to have imagined all these contingencies in advance?And this hold true for "Improv" too. When I'm just improving a Orc Warrior to just 'pop' in from thin air with equipment and magic items. So when they "suddenly" use something a minute later, I had already thought they had it. Of course with nothing written down, the players will always think "the DM just made it up" in some hostile way.
I establish player trust by:So my question here was: what do other improv DMs do?
I think this reflects rather more of the problem than you realize. If you believe invoking a single word could resolve a situation like this, you have massively misunderstood what is going wrong. There is no magic word which suddenly makes people give you their trust.So, is there a special modern "buzz word" I can say to calm them down?
I see the problem here is so many people think of the DM "as a player". A player in a traditional RPG only players the game with a single character and is powerless to alter the game reality. A player in such a RPG can't just see a dragon and say "oh, my character has a dragon slaying sword...hehe". If they could, there would be no "game". A player could just say "I rule. Game over." This is why players are near powerless in transnational RPGs.Because it is seen as a form of cheating, breaking the gentleperson's agreement, "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further" type stuff. Even if you don't agree with that interpretation (and I'm 100% certain you don't agree!), that's how a significant group of people are going to feel. Choosing to respond to that feeling with "well you're just being irrational/wrong/whatever" is generally counterproductive.
Agreed more or less.Well, I hate to break it to you, but it kinda is almost impossible to tell the difference between "I thought of this five minutes ago" and "I'm just blocking your clever plan with something that popped into my head after you said it." As a player, the two can look nearly identical. Put yourself in a player's shoes; the GM has, three times now, nixed a plan you thought was smart, because of something they claim was there in their head five minutes ago. What evidence do you have of that claim? How could you tell the difference between that and said GM just fiat declaring "no" and pretending to have imagined all these contingencies in advance?
My game is explicitly Unfair. It really has noting to do with Railroading.It sounds, to me, like your players don't really believe that you will play fairly with them. This is one of the serious risks of railroading (and why I never railroad, myself.) When it gets discovered, it erodes belief that the GM plays fair.
I have. They say: No. Though they are players full of hate for anyone that does not think like they do and agree with them on nearly everything. They consider anything they don't like a personal attack on them.If I were in your situation, I would ask the players about whether they believe you adjudicate things fairly. Do they think you only do things for extremely good reasons, despite never being told what those reasons are? Or do they think you do things simply because you feel like it, changing stuff whenever it suits you, even if it means contradicting yourself or dashing their plans because of a new thought you just had?
I do this, as I love to brag. Of course, the bad players don't like this much. "Yea, see I put this trap right here as I knew you would have your character stumble into the room like a fool and trigger the trap."I establish player trust by:
1. Showing them my work, when I have it to show (usually after the fact, not in the heat of the moment.)
Kind of the same as above.2. Building justifications for changes, especially doing so well in advance, using things the players do know about.
Is a Railroad Tycoon.3. Never railroading.
Well, I do love the Old School style of players coming up with and doing things. Though I don't run an easy button game. Far too many DMs let the players simply do any "crazy wacky plan" : just like what the players see in most movies. I don't do that.4. Always giving the players a fair hearing for any ideas they have, making sure it works out if it's feasible, and coming up with a compromise if it isn't.
Do this.5. Taking player preferences, interests, and needs into account when preparing content, e.g. talking about the food and clothing of a place because the anthropology major loves that stuff, including skullduggery and manipulation because another player likes that, making sure there's good tactical combat (at least, as much as the system allows), etc.
I don't have any reason to lie as a DM or a person. Of course a lot of players don't understand that when they talk to an NPC it's not "me talking". So many players get mad when they talk to a NPC called Lyingsnake and are told "there is no trap over there. Then the player has the character go over there and a trap is sprung.6. Never, ever lying to my players. I will sometimes refuse to answer questions, though I try to only do that very rarely. I, as GM, never lie. The characters I portray sometimes lie. But when I speak to them as GM? I am never stating something false.
For many 5th generation type games are obsessed with words. "Sandbox" is a great example: Tell players your game is a "sandbox" and they will love the game no matter what it's like Because they are told "it's a sandbox" and they "like sandboxes".I think this reflects rather more of the problem than you realize. If you believe invoking a single word could resolve a situation like this, you have massively misunderstood what is going wrong. There is no magic word which suddenly makes people give you their trust.
I was going to reply to this on many points, but then I realized it was waste of time. Good luck in your future endeavors.I see the problem here is so many people think of the DM "as a player". A player in a traditional RPG only players the game with a single character and is powerless to alter the game reality. A player in such a RPG can't just see a dragon and say "oh, my character has a dragon slaying sword...hehe". If they could, there would be no "game". A player could just say "I rule. Game over." This is why players are near powerless in transnational RPGs.
A DM, however, is not a "player". They are not controlling a single player and moving them through the game world. The DM can "just say" anything at any time.
Agreed more or less.
My game is explicitly Unfair. It really has noting to do with Railroading.
I have. They say: No. Though they are players full of hate for anyone that does not think like they do and agree with them on nearly everything. They consider anything they don't like a personal attack on them.
I do this, as I love to brag. Of course, the bad players don't like this much. "Yea, see I put this trap right here as I knew you would have your character stumble into the room like a fool and trigger the trap."
Kind of the same as above.
Is a Railroad Tycoon.
Well, I do love the Old School style of players coming up with and doing things. Though I don't run an easy button game. Far too many DMs let the players simply do any "crazy wacky plan" : just like what the players see in most movies. I don't do that.
Do this.
I don't have any reason to lie as a DM or a person. Of course a lot of players don't understand that when they talk to an NPC it's not "me talking". So many players get mad when they talk to a NPC called Lyingsnake and are told "there is no trap over there. Then the player has the character go over there and a trap is sprung.
For many 5th generation type games are obsessed with words. "Sandbox" is a great example: Tell players your game is a "sandbox" and they will love the game no matter what it's like Because they are told "it's a sandbox" and they "like sandboxes".