#25: Player Pet Peeves

[RPGnet Columns]

http://www.rpg.net/columns/kosher/kosher25.phtml

Summary:

A listing of GM actions that bug players.

Go to the column (http://www.rpg.net/columns/kosher/kosher25.phtml) for more information.

[SteelCaress]

Only minor nitpicks with #2 and #6.

#2: I run GMPC's, and my players don't seem to have a beef with them. They usually exist with very small groups, having some skills that the PC's may well lack. But this doesn't let them become the stars of the show, just useful. They're also usually based around either (A) an experimental way to design a character or (B) an interesting culture that I thought was ignored or passed over. A dwarven character of mine got killed when a die roll indicated an avalanche. As he was carrying all their gold, it made it all the more involving for the others. They were very cautious, shuddering and wondering who was next, and wondering what they were going to do once they reached the next town with precious little coin. It emphasized lethality without letting some lame die roll decide who of the PCs should live or die. Another character betrayed the party, and yet another became an important plot introduction. GMPCs have their uses; GMs shouldn't use them in the way you describe.

#6: Sometimes it's good to fudge a die result, in favor of drama. One of the things I always thought was stupid was a character dying just because the dice said he did. Nothing he did wrong, or said wrong, just a die roll. Should Conan die at the hands of mooks because one of 'em got lucky? Not in my book. Should Drizzt Do'Urden die because he blew his poison save? Now, if a PC does something absolutely astoundingly stupid, especially if it has no bearing on roleplaying his character, I have no compunctions about smoking him.

Just a couple nitpicks, simply because I am a GM. I read things like this because I want to know what I'm doing wrong, if I'm doing wrong. Also I love player feedback -- just not during the game.

[Walter S Ciechanowski]

Thanks for reading, SteelCaress!

I agree with you that fudging is okay (I do it myself as a GM), but I prefer the "don't ask, don't tell" approach. When it's too obvious that the GM is fudging, it hurts my suspension of disbelief.

Walt

[red_bee]

GMPC's can definitely be a problem if mishandled. If anything, I tend to err in the opposite direction, so whenever the PC's encounter a new 'ally', they wonder how long it will be until this new guy gets killed :)

Great column - plenty of advice for people to think about.

[Old Geezer]

#2: I run GMPC's, and my players don't seem to have a beef with them. They usually exist with very small groups, having some skills that the PC's may well lack. But this doesn't let them become the stars of the show, just useful. They're also usually based around either (A) an experimental way to design a character or (B) an interesting culture that I thought was ignored or passed over. A dwarven character of mine got killed when a die roll indicated an avalanche. As he was carrying all their gold, it made it all the more involving for the others. They were very cautious, shuddering and wondering who was next, and wondering what they were going to do once they reached the next town with precious little coin. It emphasized lethality without letting some lame die roll decide who of the PCs should live or die. Another character betrayed the party, and yet another became an important plot introduction.


You are describing an NPC. An NPC is not the same thing as a GMPC. A GMPC means specifically that the GM is as invested in the success of that character as the players are in the success of theirs.

[smascrns]

Illogical motivations are not sadly the only cases of illogical gaming. Neither are they specific to rpgs. They are prevalent in most average movies or fiction books. How many times did we see the heroes leaving behind a knocked out enemy only for the later to raise and sound the bell just after they turned their back?

Illogical behavior actually ofends me more than illogical motivations, be it by PCs or NPCs.

[Macross]

I've been accused of the "bait and switch" but I find that it works.

If I tell a player, "Okay this adventure is about a bunch of clumsy, inexperienced amature kid who have just entered gladitor school" what kind of character will they create? Harden Warriors who killed there first man at the age of two and fought a bear unarmed. You tell them the game will involve fighting but the character aren't the best fighters in the land at first and they create fighters who are the best at the on set. Down playing something is a valuable tool to get players to risk the urge of create the ultimate killing machine.

[Petra]

If my other players lagged, an NPC would always show up to push things forward. If a clue was missed, it ended up in the PC's hands anyway.

How do you encourage players to take the initiative and run with it without continually prompting them into action?

[Mikey Boy]

#6: Sometimes it's good to fudge a die result, in favor of drama. One of the things I always thought was stupid was a character dying just because the dice said he did. Nothing he did wrong, or said wrong, just a die roll.

Why use a die roll in this isntance, then. Or why use a die roll that could result in the character's death, when you didn't want that character's death to be a possible result?

Seems odd to me.

Mike

[Macross]

Well you still call a "death roll" a really painfull injury. For example your character is climbing up a cliff side to get to the top where the main bad guy waits. On the way up the player rolls bad and should fall and break his neck.

From a story stand point that's a pretty crappy ending. Character doesn't even reach the bad guy and dies from being clumsy. If I was Gming such a character I'd still keep him alive (fudge the roll) but with like a broke limb or something. They would be at greater disadvantage when they meet the bad guy but at least they would met him. If they die in that fight fine at least it's a good ending. Of course if a player just did something really stupid I'd let the die fall where they may.

[jdagna]

Good column! I'm with you on all of these points.

Here are some thoughts and experiences I've had with some of these:

1. Bait and Switch
I agree with your take that this is never good. I think this problem stems from a lack of GM-player trust and communcation. For one thing, I base my campaigns around player requests, so the idea of baiting and switching seems particularly foreign to me - if the players want a combat heavy game with non-combatant characters, they've always been mature enough to do that on their own. If that's not what they want, then they don't do it. In some cases, I've made requests of the players and see if they agree. But it's just bad GMing habits to think that the campaign is your territory alone and that you have the authority to bait and swiitch.

3. Automatic Failure
I don't really have a problem with this. Where it is a problem is when the failure represens a misunderstanding between GM and player. In the example you cite, your expectations for your abilities were different than the GM's. Would you have designed the same character if the GM had made his ruling during character creation?

6. Obvious GM fudging in the players' favor
Preach it! You'd be amazed how many players enjoy playing with me because I'm not afraid to kill their character off at totally innappropriate points (plot/theme speaking). Of course, what you don't mention is that many players expect this, like it's their right. I've had a few players get angry and argumentative even when their characters clearly should have died. (Like the one who refused a "cooperate and die" command while at gunpoint and immobilized and therefore died).

7. Sacred dice rolling
I'm not sure the dice rolling is necessarily the problem here. The problem is innappropriate interpretation of the results. For example, if you failed that initial roll in my game, I'd have said "You've heard of banshees, but can't remember anything specific - you always have had trouble keeping them separate from wights in your mind." On the failed research attempt, I'd have given you some basic information, but nothing particularly useful.

In fact, I inroduced on feature into the game system I published that will work in almost any game. On a failed roll, let the player describe why they failed. The GM just establishes the guidelines - "You didn't find out anything useful" - and the player comes up with the explanation. I find that players come up with explanations that fit their character's personality. For example, the absent-minded professor character might have just forgotten. The genius professor who never forgets anything might have read three different versions of banshees and be unsure which is accurate. The slacker student might have been high during that lecture and doesn't remember. Because the player comes up with the reason for failure, there's never a sense that the character was slighted.

[Walter S Ciechanowski]

How do you encourage players to take the initiative and run with it without continually prompting them into action?

The quick answer is to find out what the players want and tailor the adventure for it.

The problem with the quick answer is two-fold: different players want different things; and sometimes the GM and the players think that they are on the same page but really aren't.

In some cases, you might need to approach the story from a different perspective. By example, I was running an occult mystery campaign with two players who both had mystical powers, but no real interest or aptitude in mystery solving (one player loved social interaction, while the other liked to be informed of which target he'd be inflicting his powers on). After a few sessions of the PCs floundering around, I introduced a local police investigator NPC. He'd come across something that he didn't understand and seek "expert opinions." From that point on, the PCs got friendly with the NPC and would offer advice and solutions for strange crimes. It ended up working pretty well (almost like an occult CSI).

YMMV, of course.

Thanks for reading!

Walt

[Walter S Ciechanowski]

Good column! I'm with you on all of these points.


6. Obvious GM fudging in the players' favor
Preach it! You'd be amazed how many players enjoy playing with me because I'm not afraid to kill their character off at totally innappropriate points (plot/theme speaking). Of course, what you don't mention is that many players expect this, like it's their right. I've had a few players get angry and argumentative even when their characters clearly should have died. (Like the one who refused a "cooperate and die" command while at gunpoint and immobilized and therefore died).

Another problem with obvious GM fudging that I forgot to mention is that "if you do for one, you must do for the others." Maybe it does seem unfair that Percy Paladin rolled a critical failure trying to cut his foot free from a hanging snare and broke his neck during a minor encounter, but if Mandy the Mage gets killed in the ultimate battle with Evil Overlord #3, she's going to expect to be saved as well.

Thanks for reading!

Walt

[Jim Bob]

"Racism"? Dude, they're different SPECIES.

"I try to seduce the chimp."
"Dude, you're human. She's a chimp."
"So? It totally worked for Mark Wahlberg in Planet of the Apes!"
"..."

No, mate. Just say no!

[Hexaphim]

I had a (terrible) DM who had a GMPC. He was an Aasimar sorcerer, but without the level adjustment. He was also a level above the rest of the party. He referred to himself as the leader of - and speaker for - the party, and most of our players hated his guts.

My first character died, so I made a Drow wizard. After two sessions, the GMPC had beat my character in a magic duel, and left him to rot in a dungeon. So I had to make a new character.

At this point I should mention that one of the DM's best friends was in the group, and he played an Aasimar paladin (he also got away without the level adjustment, unlike my Drow). The DM had a thing for Paladins, so he favored him at every turn. He even got a "super-horse" (not a Paladin mount, this one was better) for free. The DM had the habit of putting us in situations we had NO chance of overcoming, and then have a super-powerful godlike NPC teleport in and save us. This NPC would regularly say that the Paladin was "made for great things". It really made the rest of us feel special.

We got to a point where three of the players were so sick of the GMPC that we plotted to kill him (unbeknownst to the other two players, who liked the GMPC), and the two Chaotic Neutral characters got him away from the rest of the party "for a talk", and killed him.

They were arrested immediately, and sentenced to death. One of them got the opportunity to fight for his freedom - against the Paladin. Just before the battle started, the DM said "Oh, by the way, your alignment shifted to Neutral Evil." One Smite Evil later, and he was dead.

That was the last session we ever played with that DM.

[traolcoladis]

one of my player peeves. And this is the BIG P ONE.

This is the PCGM./ the rough shod riding PC
This is a PC that regularly dictates to the rest of the group and the GM what a rule is and how it should be interpreted. What another PC should be doing at any turn rather than let the player of the character play and learn. What is worse still is the GM that allows this to happen.

The Player will make loud gasps and condensending shakes of the head as if to say how could you be so stupid. the player gets more vocal if ignored. This is also the Player runing rough shod over others.

The current GM I think has reduced this occurance but is still occurs. Enough for me to want to bring it to his attention again. I take esception to being told that MY PC is in the $#!t with all the other PC's when I was not there for the previous session due to family commitments. On the one hand it is acceptable if the GM says that this is the situation that occured last session. I find it unacceptable when discussing the situation with the GM to one side before game play starts and another player interjects and states flat out. Dude! You are in XYZ position with the proverbial cheese swinging in the wind deal with it!

That will get me wound up tighter than a car spring

Railroading:
Where the plot becomes the train tracks and the GM becomes the train. I have been guilty of this myself so I know that I am no angel. But it would seem that the characters have little say in what they want to do. It can also occur when the Gm is not as prepared as he would like to be.

Favouritism is also another major
When he was the GM he would also play favouritism. Another character would wander off and do what they needed to do and be none the worse for wear. then in my PC did something similar the character would invariably Perish. It got to the stage that the rest of the group started to feel like supporting cast.

that is essentially my reduced rant on this topic

[Deadmanwalking]

"Racism"? Dude, they're different SPECIES.

"I try to seduce the chimp."
"Dude, you're human. She's a chimp."
"So? It totally worked for Mark Wahlberg in Planet of the Apes!"
"..."

No, mate. Just say no!

Um, assuming you're referring to the Elf in Shadowrun, this is just wrong, on so many levels.

Firstly, in Shadowrun, ALL "races" (Dwarves, Orcs, Trolls, and Elves) are effectively mutated humans (changed to be that way when Magic returned to the world) or the offspring of such, and can interbreed. So, no, you're wrong.

Secondly, even in a more typical fantasy setting, both Orcs and Elves are capable of having fertile offspring with humans, making the "different species" argument hard to justify.

Thirdly, even assuming a difficulty in interbreeding, if humans couldn't breed with elves, most people would still probably be willing to sleep with one. This is obviously less true for orcs, but it's still a far cry from "sleeping with a chimp".