Wednesday, June 3, 2020

Come for the Role Playing, Stay for the Game

Another odd thing I've been seeing in my games lately is what you could call 'plot avoidance'. Before I can explain what I mean, I have to explain a little bit about what I mean by plot as I am not really using the term properly in this case. 

By plot I mean the relevant conundrum of the session or arc of sessions that are related by what is going on. It could last a single evening, several evenings, or even longer. It is the mystery the group of PCs is trying to solve, the quest they are attempting to complete, the villain or villains they are fighting to vanquish or whatever else might be driving the campaign at the time.

Recently I've noticed players who make an effort to not try to solve the mystery, who would rather RP for the entire 4 hours of our 4 hour online sessions, or who scoff at other players when their PCs come up with an idea about what's going on or how to stop it. 

This one is particularly strange to me because of the type of games I run and the way in which I run them.

Generally speaking, I don't write adventures the way most people do. Really I don't write adventures at all. I have characters that are doing things or situations that have occurred and the PCs in the game come across these things and decide what, if anything, they're going to do about it. 

In some campaigns, largely based on their genre or setting, the events that transpire are directly related to the PC's and their outlooks/purposes and one can therefore assume they will get involved because that's the very reason the characters are there. A good example of this is a Silver Age Superhero campaign. If a crime occurs and the PCs learn of it they will likely investigate. If the Super Bowl is under attack by Alien Invaders, the PCs will go to try and stop them. They don't have to technically, but they are Superheroes after all. It's what they do. It's why we're playing that particular game. 

A variant on this is when the PCs belong to an organization that can assign them to investigate an unusual or potentially dangerous situation. In this case, as above, the PCs chose to do this job, so they will want to accomplish their given assignment. An example of this is a Star Trek campaign. A Starfleet Admiral contacts the PC ship and ask them to check out a region of space not far from them where two probes and a small scout vessel have disappeared. The PCs are inclined to investigate this because they are Starfleet Officers on a Starfleet Ship and this is what Starfleet does. Furthermore this is an order from an Admiral and you need to follow orders because that's how things work in Starfleet. 

The third type of game, and last for now, is one where the PCs are 'Adventurers' with a capital 'A' in an open world/universe where they are the masters of their own fate. When I run these types of games the PCs will come across local or widespread events, characters, and conditions and it is completely up to them whether they engage with them or not. I have run Dungeons & Dragons, Traveller, and many other games this way.

An example of this type of game is one in which the PCs hear rumors of a Monster threatening the local villagers and eating their stores of food. The PCs party may decide to hunt down the Monster or they may want to leave town before the Monster strikes again. Let's say they do the latter. The team travels on to a bigger city; arriving a few days later, they hear about a nearby ruin and a possible treasure there. They decide to check that out. When they return from their expedition they might be richer but they might also hear tell that the village they left has been abandoned. The Monster ate all the food the inhabitants had saved for the winter. The players may care or they may not. 

So basically, once the players in any game discover that something is going on, something that interacts with their present course of travel or activity, they must make the choice on whether or not to interact with that component of the game. In some cases, as noted, interaction should be assumed and almost automatic. Superheroes will fight villains and try to solve crimes. Ghostbusters will investigate hauntings and try to bust ghosts. Rebels in a Star Wars game will attempt to defeat the plans of the Galactic Empire. 

In the case of a group of Adventurers, Thrill Seekers, or Treasure Hunter in D&D, Traveller, Star Frontiers, or other open-ended settings, players and their PCs decide what they want to pursue and if something crosses their path, they either deal with it or move on to something else. 

Now we can get to the real meat and potatoes of this post...

Once something is encountered or discovered, once a mystery reveals itself or a quandary is presented, the players generally make a choice to pursue it or not. The players Do Not not make a choice of any kind. They don't generally sit around the gaming table (or on the chat these days) and just RP or drink at a tavern or whathaveyou for the next dozen some odd sessions. 

Sure, there are games in which Role Playing is the explicit focus, with little to no combat or traditional mystery solving involved. There are Soap Opera games, Slice of Life games, Romance games, and many other genres that de-emphasize traditional RPG elements. Breaking the IceGolden Sky Stories, Romance in the Air, Tales from the Loop, Til Dawn are but a few of these with varying degrees of investigation and tactical action but which get deep into the characterization and storytelling aspects of gaming. 

What I am talking about however is more or less traditional game wherein the players or PCs would rather Role Play than get involved in the plot - be it discovering the reason behind a lost allied starship suddenly appearing and attacking peaceful aliens or what's behind the assassination of a nobleman and his daughter on the crux of establishing an important alliance. 

The players want to 'play their characters' and aren't focused on what is happening in the story, as if they can't act in character while searching for the catalyst of their current predicament. They want to talk with NPCs and PCs alike but with little goal in mind beyond the act itself. In some ways, this reminds me a little of the issue I discussed in my previous post. Why not do both? At the same time? Towards an end? Imagine having memorable dialogue AND accomplishing something!

In one player I have a fellow who seems to actively get upset when other players make in-roads towards solving the conundrum at hand. I am not certain why but at least twice now he accused his fellow players of kind of meta-gaming by guessing at what was happening based on the facts provided. In both instances I disagreed completely, instead commending the players for actually paying attention and putting the clues together in a sensible way. Sadly I am not always sure they're paying close attention and I'm pretty impressed when they reason such things out. 

In conclusion, What The Hell? Why is a balance between Action and Story, Characterization and Intrigue, Role Playing and Exploration so difficult for some players? Why isn't it all fused together into one coherent, equally comprised, unspoken ebb and flow? 

Why is your character in the game if they're not going to participate in the exploits that characters in such a game are supposed to participate in?

Are you playing a Starfleet Officer who isn't interested in preventing a Temporal Anomaly from damaging the timeline? Would you want to be a Superhero who opens a bar and doesn't ever fight crime? How about creating a Thief who isn't interested in obtaining treasure and instead just sits around the local tavern discussing politics and wine pairings.

Why? Why would you do that?

AD
Barking Alien





11 comments:

  1. I can think of at least a couple-few reasons why, but they (mostly) come down to an issue with the players you have. However, the tone of the post suggests (to me anyway) that these are not new players that have joined your table but, rather, long-time buddies who have either A) started exhibiting aberrant behavior, or B) gradually drifted into this behavior over time. If this is NOT the case...if they are, in fact, newly acquired members of your gaming group...well, then, maybe this is just how they're used to playing.

    As to why "regular" players would suddenly (or gradually) change: it would be hard to KNOW without actually asking them. For me, personally, I'm a "plot avoidance guy" although I can get on board a storyline when I'm playing in a con game. I prefer exploration games (the wandering adventurer) or games where I can drive my own plot / create my own goals...though I think it would be great fun to play a pseudo-military game (like Star Trek) receiving and following orders, I can see how that COULD become boring after a while and lead to a subversion of the game intent (the crew starts to subtly undermine orders or make deals with factions hostile to Fleet's interest, essentially "going rogue" even if nominally paying lip service to their superiors).

    The point is...maybe they're tired of plot and story arcs. Maybe they just don't like THIS particular story arc you're running.

    Maybe it's an issue with the particular system you're running: how does the reward mechanism encourage player behavior? In "old style" D&D, players are driven to action by the need for treasure: if they fail to go on adventures, they won't advance and they'll eventually run out of funds to maintain their gear (probably followed by starvation). Original Marvel was similar in the sense that you had a resource (Karma) that would eventually deplete to zero if you failed to act responsibly. Most "spy" type games tasked players with time-sensitive missions that (I presume) they would be fired for failing. Point is, do the players act like this with EVERY game you end up running? Or is it just a failure of the particular system you're using at the moment?

    Maybe they're just frustrated with months of Covid lockdown and are simply acting out. I think most folks are a bit short-tempered these days and prone to irritating behavior.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmm. Some clarifications and considerations:

      “…the tone of the post suggests (to me anyway) that these are not new players that have joined your table but, rather, long-time buddies who have either A) started exhibiting aberrant behavior, or B) gradually drifted into this behavior over time.”

      The post really covers the behavior of two groups with some members crossing over between them. The first has been together about 6 years or so and are all veteran gamers to some degree. While all friends, I wouldn't say long-time buddies. Some of us only see each other for the game and not outside it.

      The second group has only been together a year or so and the membership has changed so there is one fellow who is newer to gaming than the others. Two are close friends and the rest are as above, veterans players best described as ‘gamer friends’.

      In both cases the behavior is a recent development but in retrospect I saw inklings of it earlier on. I failed to recognize it as such at the time.

      “For me, personally, I'm a "plot avoidance guy" although I can get on board a storyline when I'm playing in a con game. I prefer exploration games (the wandering adventurer) or games where I can drive my own plot / create my own goals...”

      I understand the latter but I’ve never comprehended the former. If you sit down to play X game, why wouldn’t you want to lean into it? Superheroes who don’t feel the need to investigate robberies or Starfleet Officers who'd rather not check out Spatial Anomalies don’t make sense to me. If you saw that Comic Book or episode of Star Trek you’d go read or watch something else.

      “…though I think it would be great fun to play a pseudo-military game (like Star Trek) receiving and following orders, I can see how that COULD become boring after a while and lead to a subversion of the game intent (the crew starts to subtly undermine orders or make deals with factions hostile to Fleet's interest, essentially "going rogue" even if nominally paying lip service to their superiors).”

      That’s not what I meant by plot avoidance. The players in the Star Trek game are not ‘going rogue’. They are definitely into being Starfleet. It’s that they seem to make it harder for themselves and each other to solve the mystery at hand. It's as if they are trying to extend the adventure to get more Role-Playing and Discussion time by avoiding figuring out what’s going on.

      This might be OK in an 8 hour or even 4 hour session run weekly in person, but we only have 4 hours or so online starting in the evening. I don’t want to run the same scenario for several weeks when it's a one or two session plot. That's when I get bored.

      “The point is...maybe they're tired of plot and story arcs. Maybe they just don't like THIS particular story arc you're running.”

      That is a possibility.

      “Maybe it's an issue with the particular system you're running: how does the reward mechanism encourage player behavior?”

      There is no reward system. Most of the games I run don’t really have one. No one cares about that. Each PC gets to increase a Stat or Skill by one point and add a new Ability or something like that every dozen sessions or so. We aren't at all concerned with PC advancement. There’s no gold, money, or magic items in our Star Trek, Red Dwarf, or Superhero games. PC advancement isn't a big deal.

      “…do the players act like this with EVERY game you end up running? Or is it just a failure of the particular system you're using at the moment?”

      I don’t see it as system related at all.

      Those who act this way – and to be clear it isn’t everyone; just one or two players in one group or the other – do so in every game they are in. In groups without these individuals I am not experiencing this issue.

      “Maybe they're just frustrated with months of Covid lockdown and are simply acting out. I think most folks are a bit short-tempered these days and prone to irritating behavior.”

      Very possible. Aren’t we all?

      Delete
  2. Thanks for the clarifications. Yeah, I consider six years to be “long term.” Heck, a year is pretty long, depending on how often you get together.

    Since the behavior is only seen in a couple individuals (and it is present across games, regardless of system), then I’d say the issue probably lies with the particular individuals: their preferred style of play and their particular creative agendas. You wrote:

    “We aren’t all that concerned with PC advancement.”

    This to me is a red flag; PCs have to be concerned with SOMEthing or the game is going to lack a motor to drive it. Advancement is an easy (and obvious) carrot...so is wealth in a game where resource scarcity is important (original Traveler, for example...need to keep flying!).

    I understand the Star Trek universe doesn’t really have money, but there needs to be some motivation for the players...something that applies pressure if they won’t apply it themselves. Problem is, GM applies pressure tends to be what is called “a railroad” and a poor form of play; but if nothing else gets the players moving, do YOU really want to just play holodeck for these dudes content to bask in their role-playing?

    Maybe their ship is being decommissioned and they’re in danger of being permanently shore-leaved if they don’t make some imaginary quota. Maybe their ship is an old model (a real piece of trash) and they’re bucking for promotion to get a better one. Maybe their all out of fuel cells or D-crystals and only this community on the edge of the Star anomaly has what they need to keep from being set adrift?

    I don’t know. Most Star Trek episodes have something that impels urgency...but then ST was a scripted TV show, not an RPG.

    Have you checked out Far Trek? It has a bunch of random tables that provide ST-trope plots for game sessions. Even with the system you’re using, it might be a useful tool.

    Otherwise...I don’t know, man. It’s not a problem I run into, except with systems that lack decent player motivating advancement mechanics. But even then (here I’m thinking of long-running Vampire sagas), I had enough “buy in” from the players that they would lean into the stories. When they STOPPED leaning in, guess what? The campaign dried up (in part because I was tired of “making up” stories for them to dance through).

    Maybe you want to try a different system. Failing that, you can ask the RP folks to ‘step up their game’ (or ship else out).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you might be confusing PC Advancement with PC Motivation.

      What I am saying is that for myself and the gamers I play with, gaining power, making money, raising stats, and that sort of thing are not motivators or are at best secondary motivators. The things that concern a D&D Magic User or Fighter - getting a magic sword or a better wand - are rather trivial and mechanical. They help you do more damage or aid you in getting richer but are not character based motivations.

      The PCs in my campaigns do improve, here and there and dependent upon the system of course (I play many different ones) but it isn't what drives them on. Each has their own personal goals and desires in addition to the calling they've all agreed to follow (Protecting people, fighting crime, exploring space, defending the Federation, finding Earth, defeating the Empire, etc).

      If your Players are mainly motivated by 'player motivating advancement mechanics' they should probably be playing video games or D&D. Those aren't actual motivations. They're rules. The rules aren't why you leap into danger, explore a lost colony, try to save the life of your loved one, or fight to prove your worth.

      The PCs in my games are motivated by a Competitive spirit, Fear, Friendship, Love, Revenge, Sorrow, or a feeling of accomplishment of some near-impossible task.

      Delete
    2. Hmm...when I wrote "advancement" I should have written "reward." Reward mechanics in RPGs shape and influence player behavior, regardless of whether or not they're tied to "advancement" (i.e. character development and/or increased in-game effectiveness). Apologies for being lazy in my semantics.

      If you have nothing SYSTEM-WISE that drives PC action (aside from "self-motivation") you run the risk of your game not going anywhere. And by "anywhere" I mean "not going in an interesting or meaningful (to YOU) direction."

      Your players are motivated to "fight crime" or "defend the Federation" or "explore space." Why? Because it's written on their character sheet? Because it's the game you happen to be playing? Okay...but that only works if the players are sitting at your table for THAT reason and not for reasons of Fear, Friendship, Love, Etc. which might be PLAYER motivations rather than game motivations.

      [example: I am playing this game because my buddies are doing so and I enjoy hanging with my buddies and rolling dice. I am playing this game because my significant other is. I am playing this game because my friends want to do so and I'm afraid to be left out/left behind on a Saturday night, etc.]

      To have CONSISTENT motivated game play (i.e. play that goes a particular direction), you need to have in-game motivation. Doing good gives us Karma points which allow our heroes to execute power stunts or hit bullseyes more often. Accomplishing cool things gives us Force points that allow us to jack up our rolls and do other cool things. Completing the deal will get our crew PAID so that we can ensure we have enough fuel to get off this godforsaken rock and make it to another (better/more lucrative/more fun) destination. Etc.

      Doing things because we "feel good" about it or because it's written on our character sheet isn't enough.

      This is the reason why "alignment" in D&D has gradually become less and less meaningful in the game. It can only be used punitively as a motivator ('Act your alignment or lose a level!'). Once upon a time EVERY magic sword (in OD&D) had an alignment and picking up the wrong one might kill you. Once upon a time alignment mattered to who could adventure in which party, which character classes were available to you, and (in the case of clerics) the maximum level you could achieve.

      If the only reward system is becoming better in combat, and the only way to become better in combat is killing, players will focus their efforts there. And DMs who try to deviate from that formula will either end up retooling much of the rules (silly when they could just find a supporting system), or find their game degenerates into...well, nothing.

      [that's one of the reasons I don't play newer edition D&D]

      Delete

    3. You're not playing D&D and that's fine. But your system still needs some sort of reward mechanic to "goose" players into action. If you don't have one, you run the risk of a table of folks who are content to sit around and play-act despite the "Explore Brave New Worlds" motivation written on the character sheet. Rewards do NOT need to be advancement. I played a LOT of ElfQuest (the Chaosium RPG) back in my youth, and that game is certainly NOT motivated by money (there is none) or "advancement" (only combat adds combat skill and elves tend to get their skinny limbs lopped off easily). But without some sort of pressing need...a MadCoil like intrusion, the need to find a new "Holt" away from the crazy humans, the pressure of "recognition" or a romantic rivalry...there is no game. You're just diddling around, rolling dice to see if you find berries or wild game, and pretending to be elves.

      Pressure can be applied by GMs, by the system (*not* setting!) or by both. Pressure forces the players to act (i.e. self-motivate). System pressure is a bit better, in my opinion, because I'm thinned skin and don't like my players labeling me as a "railroad" GM. It can be irritating to players when I (as the GM) say: your ship blows a gasket and is cast adrift what do you do? On the other hand, when I make a roll that comes up 'blown gasket' and say, Gee, too bad you spent your money on big guns instead of spare parts what are you going to do? the players are still irritated but not at ME (rather, at the dice/system or, hopefully, themselves). Either way, pressure is applied and action required.

      The mechanics of how "things get done" do not provide motivation (usually...see a game like InSpectres for one that does). But the designed system, including reward mechanics, CAN provide motivation. They can provide pressure, impelling action, with consistency. "Your mission, should you CHOOSE to accept it..." should NEVER be on the table, not unless there is some other motivating force for the players. D&D and similar games...Traveller, Boot Hill, etc...can get away with NOT having forced missions (because players already have motivations of greed and/or level advancement) but most genre RPGs need something to kick players in the ass and get them moving.

      Relying on players' own ability to motivate (especially the more players there are, each with individual personalities) isn't a good recipe for success, regardless of how lofty the ideals on the game box or the players' character sheets.

      Delete
    4. I can only say..."I suppose".

      Clearly we play for very different reasons and have very different players.

      I've been running games for almost 43 years now and believe or not, many of them have been extremely successful without what you describe above. We, the people I've gamed with and I, have grown out of the need to have a mechanical reward system. I don't think we've paid a ton of attention to the idea in the last 10 years and hardly at all in the past 5.

      You don't need to convince us to eat our veggies by telling us we'll get dessert afterwards if we do. We're adults. We eat our veggies because we like and want to eat veggies.

      The way you're describing it seems extremely old fashioned to me, no offense intended. Some like or even need that to get their players motivated. Some players think, 'Why am I playing this game if I do earn points?' or whathaveyou.

      My players are motivated by a desire to play a particular character in a certain kind of game. We have stories to tell and want to explore the telling of them. Getting to do so is the motivation AND the reward.

      I am currently in a Star Trek Adventures campaign that we are playing tonight. I think it's the 7th or 8th session. I play two characters, interchanging them depending on the mission. One is the Chief Engineer and the other an Ensign in Sciences. I've not received any reward of any kind so far aside from the one I wanted most - I get to PLAY Star Trek instead of always being the GM. I get to solve Science Mysteries and Re-configure the Navigational Deflector to do some crazy thing or other. I get to explore too very different personalities; a Warm, friendly, experienced, gregarious people person and a shy, introverted, rookie who abhors conflict and violence. I am having so much fun it doesn't even occur to me that there might be rewards. Who cares about points?

      Delete
    5. Also, it almost seems like you may have ignored the key component of my previous post...

      "The PCs in my games are motivated by a Competitive spirit, Fear, Friendship, Love, Revenge, Sorrow, or a feeling of accomplishment of some near-impossible task."

      That's what motivates the PCs because that's what motivates the Players. Mechanical rewards seem almost shallow by comparison. I don't like to use that word but it's how it feels to me. Like telling players that if they play the game they get this nice, tasty carrot. LOL

      My players don't need a carrot. They're not rabbits. They're adult Humans. They care about Human things like life, death, love, courage, loyalty, and all the other things that make your...sorry, our...our species worth examining in spite of all the less positive features we possess.

      Delete
  3. @ BA:

    Well, if that’s the case, then the only possible answer I can think of to your initial query is that it’s caused by “the coronavirus blues:” players miss human interaction, and even when they sit down to play an RPG they want to spend more time interacting with each other and less time investigating star anomalies or rolling dice or whatever.

    Assuming *that’s* the case (and that your players have no problems motivating themselves to explore your game) then things should, at some point, eventually return to normal.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought this was a really great post so I added it to my BEST READS OF THE WEEK series! You can check it out here https://bit.ly/3eZfVcI if you would like!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Dyvers! It's been a while since I had that honor.

      I feel like comments conversation is better than the actual post but I think I can fix that with a new post inspired by what was 'said'.

      Delete